Alien3

ThirdMan

I've just watched Alien3 for the first time in years. It was the so-called director's cut, although I'm not familiar enough with the theatrical version to spot the differences. It was a lot better than I remember. The CGI is woeful of course, but other than that I think it looks better than Aliens. It's beautifully lit at times. The cast aren't quite as good as those of the first two films but their British accents brought a grittiness to it that matched the overall tone of the film. It's flawed for sure, but I don't think it's the mess it's often made out to be. Has anyone else had a similar experience with it?

krudler

I think it's really underrated tbh, the director's cut/workprint whatever you want to call it is a vast improvement on the theatrical version, which has some really bizarre editing and pacing in some sequences. The part with the tunnels and the fire is near incomprehensible in the original version you've no idea what's going on.

It is a stunning looking movie in places, and Elliot Goldenthal's score is absolutely superb. I think the first half is much better atmosphere wise and Charles Dance is excellent in his brief role. It's one of those movies that's unfairly bashed and has been since it's release, because it's not just more running and gunning like Aliens.

Professey Chin

I think its better then its given credit for but I'm not a fan of the Alien in it. In a way it nearly could have been a better film without the tie to the franchise

I really would have liked to see the original concept they talk about on the docs with the special editions. A giant planet built for people who wanted to live without technology. Sounds like it would have been mental :pac:

krudler

Professey Chin wrote: »

I think its better then its given credit for but I'm not a fan of the Alien in it. In a way it nearly could have been a better film without the tie to the franchise

I really would have liked to see the original concept they talk about on the docs with the special editions. A giant planet built for people who wanted to live without technology. Sounds like it would have been mental :pac:

Yeah the alien changes size constantly, going from looking like a greyhound (which they actually screen tested, stuck a dog in a suit until it freaked out) to a giant man size thing, there's crappy continuity in it. I did like the concept that the aliens take on characteristics of their host and in the original it came out of a dog but in the director's cut it's an ox so that's a bit all over the place.

Considering it was Fincher's first movie and it started production without a full script it's no surprise it was a mess, Fox didn't seem to know what they wanted. More of the same but not really is how it seems. but what's good is very good and Fincher's direction is really solid for a first time feature, there's some fantastic sequences in it.

The making of it on the blu-ray is worth watching, films with troubled productions always make for the best docs.

ThirdMan

krudler wrote: »

It's one of those movies that's unfairly bashed and has been since it's release, because it's not just more running and gunning like Aliens.

I watched Aliens last night as well. The special effects are still excellent and it's quotable in the way that all good 80s actions movies are. But it just felt dated. Running and gunning indeed. From here on my two favourites are the first and the third.

krudler wrote: »

...there's crappy continuity in it.

I'm not sure if you'd call this a continuity error or just a badly thought out idea, but I burst out laughing when I seen in. It's the scene where Ripley is in the basement. She sees what she think's is the alien and puts an axe into its 'head'. But it turns out it's only a bit of piping. Well she did see the Alien, and so did we. You can clearly make out its body and elongated head. It's definitely the alien. The pipe she eventually hits looks nothing like its head. At fist I thought the alien had moved before she got there, but now I'm certain that didn't happen. It's just an awful idea.

krudler

ThirdMan wrote: »

I watched Aliens last night as well. The special effects are still excellent and it's quotable in the way that all good 80s actions movies are. But it just felt dated. Running and gunning indeed. From here on my two favourites are the first and the third.



I'm not sure if you'd call this a continuity error or just a badly thought out idea, but I burst out laughing when I seen in. It's the scene where Ripley is in the basement. She sees what she think's is the alien and puts an axe into its 'head'. But it turns out it's only a bit of piping. Well she did see the Alien, and so did we. You can clearly make out its body and elongated head. It's definitely the alien. The pipe she eventually hits looks nothing like its head. At fist I thought the alien had moved before she got there, but now I'm certain that didn't happen. It's just an awful idea.

With the pipe bit they were harking back to the original movie where that shot of the alien curled up in the escape pod blends into the piping, but yeah it looked silly in 3.

It's a pity Charles Dance wasn't in it for longer, been a big fan of his for a long time he's a great character actor.

timthumbni

ThirdMan wrote: »

I've just watched Alien3 for the first time in years. It was the so-called director's cut, although I'm not familiar enough with the theatrical version to spot the differences. It was a lot better than I remember. The CGI is woeful of course, but other than that I think it looks better than Aliens. It's beautifully lit at times. The cast aren't quite as good as those of the first two films but their British accents brought a grittiness to it that matched the overall tone of the film. It's flawed for sure, but I don't think it's the mess it's often made out to be. Has anyone else had a similar experience with it?

Brian Glover was in it I think. He was the actor in an american werewolf in London in the pub (the slaughtered lamb lol) that told the remember the Alamo joke. Love the thick Yorkshire accent.

I haven't watched alien 3 for years but think I will give it another buzz. I watched it in the cinema on release and thought it was ok though not as good as the first 2 obviously.

pixelburp

It gets somewhat undeserved criticism, I don't think Alien 3 is as bad as its reputation suggests; its behind-the-lens problems are infamous and fans hated the off-screen deaths of Newt, Hicks and Bishop, but what is there is an effective slice of gothic horror with some fabulous visuals and effective scenes; also, taken as a trilogy the story of Ellen Ripley gets a fair - if completely morbid and pessimistic - send-off. This is a creature that would follow her to the ends of the universe, destroying everything she held dear and it seemed appropriate Ripley would be the one to put the problem out of Weyland-Yutani's reach once & for all (I'm ignoring what came after here, leave me alone ).

What's to be admired too is that they simply didn't try and copy Aliens - which must have been a strong temptation - the end product is its own animal & if you take the original trilogy as a whole, it's worth praising how different each film is. Ok, the first and third are similar enough, but they all have their own tone and register. I keep meaning to check out the 'directors cut', so this thread's a nice reminder to do so.

Some of the canned plots from this film could have made for fascinating films in their own right; between the version set on a wooden spaceship populated by monks, to the draft that turned the xenomorphs into an airborne virus, violently mutating people into xenos. Aside from catapulting the mythology into another direction, the latter could have made for an interesting successor to The Thing with the paranoia borne from that concept.

LuckyLloyd

I think it's an under appreciated gem to be perfectly honest.

brianregan09

Just don't mention resurrection :P

ThirdMan

krudler wrote: »

Yeah the alien changes size constantly, going from looking like a greyhound (which they actually screen tested, stuck a dog in a suit until it freaked out) to a giant man size thing

Duggy747

Yea, it gets more bashing than it deserves. Nowhere near as good as the first two but it at least didn't follow Aliens as being another balls-to-the-walls action film, it tried to standout on it's own merits.

The Director's Cut definitely clears up some consistencies from the theatrical version. The CGI is definitely ropey and hasn't aged good at all, some scenes the CG alien sticks out like a sore-thumb it looks so badly put in a scene.

Nowadays, Fincher still wants nothing to do with this film :pac:

o1s1n

I was never a big fan of Alien 3, remember being one of the disappointed fans when it first came out.

However, I saw the extended 'Assembly Cut' version last year which adds 30 minutes to the film - wow! thought it was really great. Such a shame they didn't go with that version originally.

I didn't know that about the dog by the way, hilarious

krudler

o1s1n wrote: »

I was never a big fan of Alien 3, remember being one of the disappointed fans when it first came out.

However, I saw the extended 'Assembly Cut' version last year which adds 30 minutes to the film - wow! thought it was really great. Such a shame they didn't go with that version originally.

I didn't know that about the dog by the way, hilarious

The extra footage adds ways more to it, and sorts out the continuity issues with Golic simply vanishing midway through the theatrical version. I remember reading the novelisation of it years and years ago and wondering why the movie didn't have the scene where he goes to look at the alien thinking it'd be friendly to him. The sequence where they're trying to burn the creature out of the air ducts makes way more sense in the assembly cut as well it's missing lots of action beats in the theatrical one.

The Alien franchise is pretty unique in that each movie has it's own creative vision so yeah it was pretty ballsy to not just make a direct sequel to Aliens with more marines and shooting. I do love the first 3 movies, Resurrection has a few ok moments but it's mostly crap.

Ipso

o1s1n wrote: »

I was never a big fan of Alien 3, remember being one of the disappointed fans when it first came out.

However, I saw the extended 'Assembly Cut' version last year which adds 30 minutes to the film - wow! thought it was really great. Such a shame they didn't go with that version originally.

I didn't know that about the dog by the way, hilarious

Wasn't there an Aliens inspired Simpsons episode where Santa's little helper chases grounds keeper Willy though ventilation shafts?
Reminds me of that.

krudler

Couldn't post this earlier but Goldenthal's score is absolutely brilliant, so atmospheric

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGZxh-NG7FA

That piece at about 1.52 is excellent stuff.

pixelburp

krudler wrote: »

[...]
The Alien franchise is pretty unique in that each movie has it's own creative vision so yeah it was pretty ballsy to not just make a direct sequel to Aliens with more marines and shooting. I do love the first 3 movies, Resurrection has a few ok moments but it's mostly crap.

Resurrection does service as a useful reminder that not everything Joss Whedon writes is automatically a slice of fried gold. Though equally the hiring of Jean-Pierre Jeunet shows that just because someone is talented and creative, doesn't mean they're the right fit for a script.

Mind you, I'd sooner watch Resurrection than either of the two AvP films.

Links234

You know what? I absolutely LOVE Alien 3

There's an atmosphere to it that's just unbeatable, it's dark, bleak and miserable. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a better film, but I'd sooner go back and watch it than Aliens.

the_monkey

Fantastic film - especially the directors cut, it's like a different film and vastly superior then the TC.

That whole sub plot of them

trapping the Alien and then the nutcase releasing it

amazing stuff, especially the scene when he opens the door - so creepy.

And in TC none of that was shown.

Links234

Watched it again last night

elWizard

pixelburp wrote: »

Resurrection does service as a useful reminder that not everything Joss Whedon writes is automatically a slice of fried gold. Though equally the hiring of Jean-Pierre Jeunet shows that just because someone is talented and creative, doesn't mean they're the right fit for a script.

I don't think every thing Whedon writes is fried gold at all, but I'm sure I have read or seen interviews with him where he was quite frank about a big problem for him on Resurrection being that Jeunet's English wasn't good enough, and that most of the script's humour went over his head.
It's plausible, don't remember it being a particularly funny film, though I do remember it trying. But I'm biased - stopped being a fan of Jeunet when he stopped working with Caro.

Back on topic - watched the assembly cut of Alien 3 a couple of years back; found it an improvement but unrelentingly grim and dismal. Had very little fun with it - strange for what was released as a Summer Blockbuster.

Think the Vincent Ward version set on the 'planet' of Wood had potential to be really excellent. Real shame we never got to see that.

Beefy78

I've always been a big fan of this film. It's a pity that they couldn't tidy up the special effects when putting out the Assembly Cut a few years ago. The basic CGI of the Alien in those shots which never got completed properly can really take you out of the film.

As others have said it was a brave decision to not give people the film that they were expecting. I actually think it was a few years ahead of its time in that regard.

Ipso

Here's an article from Empire about the wooden planet story line.
http://www.empireonline.com/features/alien-3-tale-of-the-wooden-planet/

Links234

elWizard wrote: »

found it an improvement but unrelentingly grim and dismal.

Yeah, it's utterly bleak and harrowing, and I think that's why I love it and why it's a great end to Ripley's story, she's had everything taken from her at this point, she's beaten, weary, fatalistic and grief-stricken. She wants to die, that scene where she goes to find the alien, to try and provoke it into killing her is one of the most powerful of the entire franchise, she's been through so much because of this monster and is broken by it.

The whole tone of the film is nihilistic, but that's what makes it such an incredible end to Ripley's story and it's not a nice one, but it's a powerful one.

FlashD

Sorry to break up the 'love-in' going on here,

I don't know if its nostalgia or the fact that every Alien film since 'Aliens' has been getting progressively worse which makes 'Alien 3' look like a piece of genius. The reality is that 'ALien 3' just isn't very good.

The worst production award of all time goes to this film and it shows, one director booted, the other walking and finally some studio suit clobbering it all together. The result is slow, sterile, disjointed and boring with a load of characters that I just didn't really care about. It lacks the action, suspense, fear and claustrophobia of both Alien and Aliens. Even with an extra 30 minutes, this remains a pathetic ending to the character of Ripley and the franchise. The fans at the time deserved better.

On top of that, to this day it remains a shining example of what happens when a know it all movie studio tries to bully a young talented director who thankfully had the balls to throw it back in their faces and go on to build a huge fan base and become a leading figure in the industry.

Trash, half star for the music.
Vincent Ward... 5 stars for his original vision. http://www.empireonline.com/features/alien-3-tale-of-the-wooden-planet/default.asp
David Fincher...5 stars for walking away from a bunch of studio muppets.

ThirdMan

FlashD wrote: »

...every Alien film since 'Aliens' has been getting progressively worse...

Actually, every film since Alien has been getting progressively worse.

The performances alone carry it over the line for me. Add to that the music and the entire look of the film. It really is gorgeous at times. Pause button worthy.

It does lack the claustrophobia though, I agree with you there.

Links234

FlashD wrote: »

I don't know if its nostalgia or the fact that every Alien film since 'Aliens' has been getting progressively worse which makes 'Alien 3' look like a piece of genius.

Or it was unfairly trashed at the time, when people wanted more action and were expecting just another Aliens?

conorhal

The story was somewhat hamstrung from the start as Sigourney Weaver insisted after Aliens that there be no guns (she hated them and is very pro gun control), and the fact that she was tired of the series and agreed to do number 3 for the money, only if Ripley was killed off.
Whenever apathetic but powerful stars start making demands about the script to suit motivations that have nothing to do with the story, things are going to go sideways.
Ward's script on his 'wooden planet' is largely an incoherent disaster. It has some interesting visuals for sure, aliens chasing monks through flaming fields, but it really doesn't make much sense and the lift and shift to a prison planet that maintained many of the elements of the script don't add much coherence.
Fincher’s strop was a bit silly too. He largely made the movie he wanted to. We know this because he filmed in such a manner that left the studio no option but to release the film he wanted, eg. Only filmed scenes in a manner that meant there wasn’t the coverage to offer editing alternatives so it could only play one way.

On the whole it’s an interesting failure that feels like a first draught script which never had a chance to iron out it’s problems. Which is sort of true. A principle filming start date without a finished script is always a recipe for disaster, and something that happens all too frequently with Hollywood blockbuster sequels.

FlashD

Links234 wrote: »

Or it was unfairly trashed at the time, when people wanted more action and were expecting just another Aliens?

Action or no action, Alien & Aliens are both solid cohesive films with powerful engaging storylines and characters that an audience care about. The action is secondary to this. Don't underestimate the audience, they aren't stupid. If a story and characters aren't up to scratch, an audience will recognise this and vote with their feet at the ticket booth.

Vincent Ward had a solid vision for Alien3, the audience knew what to expect. Alien3 was a mess and it shows on screen. It's a film clobbered together by an upstairs studio suit. Great for you if you like that kind of thing, because there is plenty of it around these days especially during the Summer season.

David Fincher would agree with me.

Duggy747

Also, this minor but memorable variation of the 20th Century Fox theme: :pac:

Temptamperu

Its a decent movie, but yes lots of interference from fox ruined it.

fluke

People keep saying the decisions made in Alien3 were brave, but no they were just really stupid e.g. killing off the main players in the predecessor and replacing them with generic convicts.

Zubeneschamali

The only relatable character in Alien3 is the Alien.

elWizard

fluke wrote: »

People keep saying the decisions made in Alien3 were brave, but no they were just really stupid e.g. killing off the main players in the predecessor

But THAT decision was understandable - they'd likely have had to replace the kid who played Newt, Michael Biehn's character was iirc severely maimed by acid so wouldn't have been getting up to much, and they did keep Bishop, after a fashion. But they also got off on the wrong foot by killing them so callously off-screen/during the credits - oh, and doing a gruesome autopsy on poor Newt. That was in keeping with the chilling, much more horrific tone they apparently wanted, but imo is a really jarring comedown from the fist-in-the-air, blood-pumping finale of Aliens. (I know they're supposed to be stand-alone films, and even appreciate that they tried to go for slightly different genres each time, but the sense even in those pre-Internet days was that fans were unhappy with these deaths).

I also liked the choices not to use guns - limitations tending to aid creativity and all that - and the unusually ego-free decision to shave everyone's head, including the extremely high-paid leading lady, quite radical really.

As others have said, the really stupid decision was starting to shoot without a finished script.

Kunkka

I have seen worse movies to be fair to Alien3. Like the original in ways but the movie is all over the place, it could have been so much more.

Frank Bullitt

krudler wrote: »

Couldn't post this earlier but Goldenthal's score is absolutely brilliant, so atmospheric

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGZxh-NG7FA

That piece at about 1.52 is excellent stuff.

His score for Heat is a masterpiece. This is also a fine OST.

Ridley

Temptamperu wrote: »

Its a decent movie, but yes lots of interference from fox ruined it.

There was a line that has stuck with me from someone around here saying Fox wanted any Alien film as soon as possible rather than a great movie later.

Alien 3 is a bit of a mess but it's an interesting one. Sort of a hybrid of Alien and Aliens that brings back the threat of just one xenomorph and put Ripley with people she wasn't safe with.

TheDoc

I actually picked up the Alien boxset on bluray because of this very thread. In it are all four alien films, original releases and directors cuts.

The extended version makes Alien 3 totally coherant and a completely different film. I'd only ever seen the theatrical release which I thought was garbage, but the directors cut adds so much more, making it a much better experience. The attempt at CGI for the alien still looks terrible, even more so on Bluray, really shoddy stuff.

But the story and film itself is so much more coherant.

I also saw for the first time the directors cut of Alien which was brilliant. What was happening to Bret in the cocoon, I thought obviously from Aliens, that potential hosts were cocooned for facehuggers, but something was happening to Brett I didn't know about

Sad Professor

I think it would have been a divisive film regardless of studio interference. After Aliens, everyone wanted another action-packed crowd pleaser, which Fincher was never going to deliver. His take on Alien was too dark and nihilistic for mainstream audiences.

It's a shame we don't have a better cut of the film.. While I understand the reasoning behind the reconstructed assembly cut on the Blu-ray, some of the stuff they restored (like the beginning) was re-shot by Fincher for a reason. The alien coming out of the cow doesn't work.

Bowlardo

I love it just the charles Dutton "Begging" speech.....class speech...if it doesn't get the hairs on the back of the neck standing up then there is something a miss with you

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think it would have been a divisive film regardless of studio interference. After Aliens, everyone wanted another action-packed crowd pleaser, which Fincher was never going to deliver. His take on Alien was too dark and nihilistic for mainstream audiences.

It's a shame we don't have a better cut of the film.. While I understand the reasoning behind the reconstructed assembly cut on the Blu-ray, some of the stuff they restored (like the beginning) was re-shot by Fincher for a reason. The alien coming out of the cow doesn't work.

Indeed, it makes more sense for it to come out of the dog, adding to the aliens taking on some traits from their host organisms. The size of the creature is all over the place too



^ Spindly looking smaller type creature than the previous films



^ Dude in a suit.

There's nothing to indicate in any of the films that the aliens get bigger, it's huge from the getgo in the original film once it changes from the chestburster. It's just poor continuity.