Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

I think he's still developing as an actor, but I like how hard he works and what roles he has taken. He had a short but memorable bit in Blade Runner 2049 that was really nice. He's doing everything right, I hope he sticks around.

 

[Totenkindly]

WATCH IT: One of the most controversial movies ever returns to theaters​

Argentinian auteur Gaspar Noé is known for making movies that leave audiences shaken and stirred. But even by his standards, 2002's Irreversible was a shock to most moviegoers' systems, telling the story of a horrific crime in reverse. For the film's 20th anniversary, Noé is releasing Irreversible: Straight Cut, a new version that re-edits the film's events in chronological order. Whether you see it backwards or forwards, Irreversible still hasn't lost its power to unnerve. —E.A.

What is this level of bullshit?

The only reason the movie is endurable (because of the horrible stuff in it) is the front-loading and running it backwards, because the violence happens in the front and middle of the film, and then it keeps going backwards so that we can see them in happier times and it ends up feeling bittersweet instead of depressing and sadistic.

if you watch it forward, you basically get a happy life where suddenly everyone is run through the wringer and it ends up ending on a horrific note where you feel like you were just in a car wreck.

Who the hell thought this was a good idea for this film?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

What is this level of bullshit?

The only reason the movie is endurable (because of the horrible stuff in it) is the front-loading and running it backwards, because the violence happens in the front and middle of the film, and then it keeps going backwards so that we can see them in happier times and it ends up feeling bittersweet instead of depressing and sadistic.

if you watch it forward, you basically get a happy life where suddenly everyone is run through the wringer and it ends up ending on a horrific note where you feel like you were just in a car wreck.

Who the hell thought this was a good idea for this film?

I hate that film and don't feel it has anything to say beyond the obvious trope you already mentioned. I hate everything I've seen by that director. The only memorable thing about it was the score by one half of Daft Punk.

 

[Totenkindly]

I hate that film and don't feel it has anything to say beyond the obvious trope you already mentioned. I hate everything I've seen by that director. The only memorable thing about it was the score by one half of Daft Punk.

I actually like some of Noe's films, but yeah I know he's really a love him or hate him kind of director.

 

[Totenkindly]

watched Triangle of Sadness today -- a good but not great film, due mainly to structural issues. The film is in three acts, and each piece is generally great, but the whole first act feels like it was leading to a different film (one that would have been fascinating), centering around transactional relationships between men and women. Not that the whole film isn't about transactions in some form, but later acts of the film are not really brought back to reinforce the specifics of the first act in a way that makes them resonate, and the characters that seem to be the protagonists are just mostly lost in a larger cast setup.

So this lack of coherence left me mostly unengaged until the center of the film where there is a totally disastrous dinner amid a ship lost in a storm, and I just kept laughing and laughing through the rest of the second act, and then the final act of the film on an island was also pretty great. It's interesting that basically those who serve are also those who know how to do things, whereas those who are served often have little to actually reciprocate aside from just money and/or abstaining from punishing those without. So when an economy moves from those who have managed to garner resources often through dubious means or by inheritance (where they did nothing to deserve it or have little practical ability) to those who can actually produce, well, what happens then? It's also interesting to see how quickly things can flip in terms of a transaction relationship -- those who now have can make demands of those who need or do not have, where people seem to acclimate quickly but maybe at core are just able to go right back to the old way if the balance shifts again. [The last few minutes of the film is a bit shocking as well as revealing.]

still, that whole center section, with the absurdity of the dinner and the aftermath -- I guess I am as amused by crass humor but also at the deserved come-uppance delivered to those who essentially created their own problem, making unreasonable demands of those they have control over, thus resulting in their own degradation.

Ultimately, the film is probably a little too long at 2.5 hours and would feel less long if the early and later parts linked up better and reinforced each other more directly.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched X today by Ti West. He has certainly continued to improve as a film maker. Despite only a $1 million budget, I feel like this might be one of his most relaxed and well-paced / polished films, kind of like the promise he's been trying to pay off for years.

The film is 1:47 in length but did not feel that long, it goes at its own languid pace but feels like it is comfortably breathing; I think part of its effectiveness is that amount of time spent to breathe and feel. of course, we all know West is not adverse to gore, and there are certainly some moments of that in this film, lol. But he really did not necessarily linger on them as much as I had expected, when he's done lower-budget stuff (like VHS).

It's obviously a homage film to Texas Chainsaw and I've seen elements of other films in (definitely a mention of Psycho and a flash to some imagery reminiscent of that film). Lots of long setups, fake-outs, and similar. Just a really nice well-done film. There were a few elements I was waiting for the long payoff for, and I was not disappointed -- whether they were earlier fake-outs or just one-line comments that seemed innocent at the time.

Took me a few minutes to realize I was looking at Mia Goth in multiple roles. I figured out early on that heavy makeup was being used but I didn't recognize who was under it all. I also recognized the farmer because I've seen him under heavy makeup in certain fantasy movies -- he has played prominent orcs in Jackson's Tolkien films. Goth of course has always typically been good, and she's acted in a variety of genres. I should really watch von Trier's Nymphomaniac, I never have seen it yet though I've seen a number of his other films. Of course, Brandon Cronenberg's Infinity Pool dropped recently, so that's also on my list. I really remember her standing out in High Life (dir. Claire Denis) against Robert Pattinson, she has a pretty crazy character arc there.

 

[Totenkindly]

Rewatch Aliens today, since it had been awhile. (I had also been watching a documentary about the preproduction stage of Alien, so that whetted my appetite.) Honestly, maybe Cameron makes more money on his films today than before (although he was always making money); but I still think story-wise his tightest stuff is in his first few films (aside from Piranha 3d).

Like, he just has such a solid blend of truly tense and entertaining action beats, strongly defined characters (you can summarize them each in a line or so), and emotional arcs for most of them -- and no one was as good as him in his early career at establishing internal explanation and continuity so that his stories never felt like cheats. Great example is Ripley showing off that she can use the loader early in Aliens, so it isn't like the end set piece is pulled out of someone's ass -- we know she's skilled at using the loader, and we even see the loader earlier in a ship establishing shot before everyone wakes up. So we can believe she has a shot against the Alien queen. Not only that, but he does it in a way that serves a purpose in that early scene, so we don't even know he is doing this at the time; it establishes that Ripley, even if she's not a trained marine, can contribute to the mission in a practical and isn't just a "useless consultant" plus builds her own confidence at being valuable on this mission. he does this a lot esp in his early films, so it all feels natural and coherent rather than forced.

he's also great at playing off what the audience knows. We're horrified by one alien from the first film, so Cameron keeps dropping clues there are far more than one here. We know Ash ended up being a Company tool, so this plays into Ripley's prejudice against Bishop, which he reinforces a few times (she really throws shade at him halfway through the film, so we know she doesn't trust him, and we're not sure we can trust him either) until Cameron flips it around and we realize Bishop was always trustworthy after all.

The big thing is just setting up Ripley as a victim of trauma, and she ends up having to face it in order to get through it -- and in the meanwhile both she and Newt find redemption in each other since they've each lost a mom or daughter. Newt has trouble trusting that anyone will ever be able to be there for her again, while Ripley has failed with her own daughter and wonders whether she can ever truly be there for another... and this is what makes the end of the film so wonderful. And why I can't really view A3 as more than just a random tangent in the nature of alternate reality fan fiction.

And all the mini arcs -- Burke's slow reveal of his true allegiance and the outcome her deserves, Vasquez and Gorman's arcs intersecting resulting in a patching up of that anger/frustration (so to speak), Hudson moving from whiny fearful bitch to some final moments of crazy heroics, the really touching moment when Ripley pauses to say goodbye to Hicks... and he corrects her to share his first name, where she makes herself vulnerable and shares hers, and he tells her to "not be long." (It's a few short words but it embodies so much deep emotion.)

I dunno, it is such a perfect film aide from a few special effects shots that are just artifacts of the time period (typically small ship shots that you can tell are models against a matte or other background) that could be fixed today pretty easily.

I know I mentioned it before, but Horner had cribbed Gayane's Adagio for his opening/closing themes for this film -- the piece was also used in the middle of 2001 Space Odyssey. I don't think it was verbatim, but close enough in how he worked it all in. I would bust on him for that, but it's kind of longing and lonely and haunting in the depths of space, so... still works.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is kind of a hoot -- the dead poets cast in NYC back in 1988. From Dylan Kussman's channel.

 

[The Cat]

Rewatch Aliens today, since it had been awhile. (I had also been watching a documentary about the preproduction stage of Alien, so that whetted my appetite.) Honestly, maybe Cameron makes more money on his films today than before (although he was always making money); but I still think story-wise his tightest stuff is in his first few films (aside from Piranha 3d).

Like, he just has such a solid blend of truly tense and entertaining action beats, strongly defined characters (you can summarize them each in a line or so), and emotional arcs for most of them -- and no one was as good as him in his early career at establishing internal explanation and continuity so that his stories never felt like cheats. Great example is Ripley showing off that she can use the loader early in Aliens, so it isn't like the end set piece is pulled out of someone's ass -- we know she's skilled at using the loader, and we even see the loader earlier in a ship establishing shot before everyone wakes up. So we can believe she has a shot against the Alien queen. Not only that, but he does it in a way that serves a purpose in that early scene, so we don't even know he is doing this at the time; it establishes that Ripley, even if she's not a trained marine, can contribute to the mission in a practical and isn't just a "useless consultant" plus builds her own confidence at being valuable on this mission. he does this a lot esp in his early films, so it all feels natural and coherent rather than forced.

he's also great at playing off what the audience knows. We're horrified by one alien from the first film, so Cameron keeps dropping clues there are far more than one here. We know Ash ended up being a Company tool, so this plays into Ripley's prejudice against Bishop, which he reinforces a few times (she really throws shade at him halfway through the film, so we know she doesn't trust him, and we're not sure we can trust him either) until Cameron flips it around and we realize Bishop was always trustworthy after all.

The big thing is just setting up Ripley as a victim of trauma, and she ends up having to face it in order to get through it -- and in the meanwhile both she and Newt find redemption in each other since they've each lost a mom or daughter. Newt has trouble trusting that anyone will ever be able to be there for her again, while Ripley has failed with her own daughter and wonders whether she can ever truly be there for another... and this is what makes the end of the film so wonderful. And why I can't really view A3 as more than just a random tangent in the nature of alternate reality fan fiction.

And all the mini arcs -- Burke's slow reveal of his true allegiance and the outcome her deserves, Vasquez and Gorman's arcs intersecting resulting in a patching up of that anger/frustration (so to speak), Hudson moving from whiny fearful bitch to some final moments of crazy heroics, the really touching moment when Ripley pauses to say goodbye to Hicks... and he corrects her to share his first name, where she makes herself vulnerable and shares hers, and he tells her to "not be long." (It's a few short words but it embodies so much deep emotion.)

I dunno, it is such a perfect film aide from a few special effects shots that are just artifacts of the time period (typically small ship shots that you can tell are models against a matte or other background) that could be fixed today pretty easily.

I know I mentioned it before, but Horner had cribbed Gayane's Adagio for his opening/closing themes for this film -- the piece was also used in the middle of 2001 Space Odyssey. I don't think it was verbatim, but close enough in how he worked it all in. I would bust on him for that, but it's kind of longing and lonely and haunting in the depths of space, so... still works.

Ah back in the days before he really needed to learn that sometimes a franchise just needs to end on a high note and then gtfo out of the cosmic horror kitchen.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Rewatch Aliens today, since it had been awhile. (I had also been watching a documentary about the preproduction stage of Alien, so that whetted my appetite.) Honestly, maybe Cameron makes more money on his films today than before (although he was always making money); but I still think story-wise his tightest stuff is in his first few films (aside from Piranha 3d).

He worked best with a studio looming over his shoulder and forcing him to be more efficient. Some directors get too big for their britches, IMO. Cameron to me was always more of a workman than an auteur. Certainly a great director and I'm not saying his films lack vision, of course.

Like, he just has such a solid blend of truly tense and entertaining action beats, strongly defined characters (you can summarize them each in a line or so), and emotional arcs for most of them -- and no one was as good as him in his early career at establishing internal explanation and continuity so that his stories never felt like cheats. Great example is Ripley showing off that she can use the loader early in Aliens, so it isn't like the end set piece is pulled out of someone's ass -- we know she's skilled at using the loader, and we even see the loader earlier in a ship establishing shot before everyone wakes up. So we can believe she has a shot against the Alien queen. Not only that, but he does it in a way that serves a purpose in that early scene, so we don't even know he is doing this at the time; it establishes that Ripley, even if she's not a trained marine, can contribute to the mission in a practical and isn't just a "useless consultant" plus builds her own confidence at being valuable on this mission. he does this a lot esp in his early films, so it all feels natural and coherent rather than forced.

He's a better writer than he is a director. Again, just my opinion. Definitely a better storyteller than Ridley Scott, when it comes to establishing coherency and efficiency in his stories. I compare these two because of the Alien connection. Alien may be the better mood piece, but Aliens has better story and more rounded characterization (vs Alien's mostly one-dimensional and one-note characters--Parker is the hothead, Ripley is the voice of reason, Lambert is the scared one, and so on. The characters never develop much beyond those archetypal roles).

One thing I love about Aliens is that most of the primary characters experience a growth. Hudson gets his courage, Gorman has a minor redemption, etc

he's also great at playing off what the audience knows. We're horrified by one alien from the first film, so Cameron keeps dropping clues there are far more than one here. We know Ash ended up being a Company tool, so this plays into Ripley's prejudice against Bishop, which he reinforces a few times (she really throws shade at him halfway through the film, so we know she doesn't trust him, and we're not sure we can trust him either) until Cameron flips it around and we realize Bishop was always trustworthy after all.

Bishop is the man.

The big thing is just setting up Ripley as a victim of trauma, and she ends up having to face it in order to get through it -- and in the meanwhile both she and Newt find redemption in each other since they've each lost a mom or daughter. Newt has trouble trusting that anyone will ever be able to be there for her again, while Ripley has failed with her own daughter and wonders whether she can ever truly be there for another... and this is what makes the end of the film so wonderful. And why I can't really view A3 as more than just a random tangent in the nature of alternate reality fan fiction.

Alien 3 works best viewed as its own independent animal, but I guess that could be said of all the original 4 Alien films. I can understand why Aliens fans see it as a betrayal, and they're not entirely wrong. All I will say in defense of A3 is that the losses of Hicks and Newt were necessary for her arc in 3. It's a film about loss and picking up the pieces after said loss. Her arc across 2 and 3 is perfect, but just my opinion. The Assembly Cut (closer to Fincher's original vision) is a lot more coherent, while the film version cuts a lot of character growth and ends up feeling like a pale imitation of the first film

And all the mini arcs -- Burke's slow reveal of his true allegiance and the outcome her deserves, Vasquez and Gorman's arcs intersecting resulting in a patching up of that anger/frustration (so to speak), Hudson moving from whiny fearful bitch to some final moments of crazy heroics, the really touching moment when Ripley pauses to say goodbye to Hicks... and he corrects her to share his first name, where she makes herself vulnerable and shares hers, and he tells her to "not be long." (It's a few short words but it embodies so much deep emotion.)

I like the flip between Burke and Bishop/Gorman. We're initially led to feel Burke is a standup guy trying to do right by Ripley and we mistrust Bishop and Gorman. As you noted, Bishop was the selfless one all along, and Gorman, while an incompetent officer in over his head, realizes what must be done and doesn't hesitate in choosing the side of virtue near the end. He at least has some honor. He was never a bad guy, just poorly equipped and perhaps a little too overconfident about what he thought was a bughunt (as can be said of most of the marines)

I dunno, it is such a perfect film aide from a few special effects shots that are just artifacts of the time period (typically small ship shots that you can tell are models against a matte or other background) that could be fixed today pretty easily.

I think the fx shots add to its charm.

I know I mentioned it before, but Horner had cribbed Gayane's Adagio for his opening/closing themes for this film -- the piece was also used in the middle of 2001 Space Odyssey. I don't think it was verbatim, but close enough in how he worked it all in. I would bust on him for that, but it's kind of longing and lonely and haunting in the depths of space, so... still works.

If I can find it, I'll upload it, but I remember hearing a podcast episode years ago on the topic of film composers "borrowing" from classical music and other film composers, and Horner comes up A LOT. His "Stealing The Enterprise" (album version, not the one they used in the film cut) from the Star Trek III soundtrack almost verbatim rips off Prokofiev. He also reused his own motifs quite a bit. The Aliens action motif is basically a rework of his Klingon theme from Star Trek III. It was pretty jarring the first time I noticed it.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

When I was young, my friends and I would have the Alien vs Aliens debate, Scott vs Cameron. I always liked Aliens better back then. Having watched both Alien and Aliens with my oldest sons recently, I changed my mind.

Alien builds the tension with such skill. The camera work and editing is great. The slow burn just builds and builds, with most of the deaths off camera.

Aliens takes that and creates one of the best action SF movies of all time. It is a much more active movie and Cameron does a lot on what was a really low budget movie and makes it work, putting all his Roger Corman skills to work.

Both are really good, but I put Alien slightly above. There are just so many well shot scenes, showing Scott's art school background.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

When I was young, my friends and I would have the Alien vs Aliens debate, Scott vs Cameron. I always liked Aliens better back then. Having watched both Alien and Aliens with my oldest sons recently, I changed my mind.

Alien builds the tension with such skill. The camera work and editing is great. The slow burn just builds and builds, with most of the deaths off camera.

Aliens takes that and creates one of the best action SF movies of all time. It is a much more active movie and Cameron does a lot on what was a really low budget movie and makes it work, putting all his Roger Corman skills to work.

Both are really good, but I put Alien slightly above. There are just so many well shot scenes, showing Scott's art school background.

I prefer the visual aesthetic of Alien over Aliens. Giger's Alien, Space Jockey, and the Derelict ship, but also the design of the Nostromo interiors. Aliens looks very blue and gray to me. The marines' uniforms and equipment are all a little too Vietnam War for me, though I guess that was intentional on Cameron's part.

I like the way the Nostromo lower decks have a subterranean, hell-like feel when Ripley descends into them. Scott had the set designed with one way in and out, if I recall, so it added to the feeling of claustrophobia among the actors and carried over into their performances. They're all very on edge and agitated and I really feel Parker when he whines about wanting to go home and party.

I loved the game Alien Isolation because it recreated the production design of Alien so flawlessly. Sure, stereo boomboxes and clunky analog tech are anachronistic, the game designers easily could've ignored that look and gone for a visual update (as is the case with Prometheus and Alien Covenant, and both feel out of place in the timeline as a result) but it really makes you feel like you're immersed in the world Scott showed us.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't disagree with either of you about the great aspects of Alien (in fact, it was a toss-up between which to watch, and it was at night when I started and I thought I could fall asleep due to Alien pacing and length), it's just that to me it's more apples and oranges. Despite being similar topical matter, they are both different films with different focuses.

The art design is phenomenal for Alien and it is miraculous it ever got made, honestly, or made well. I am watching "Memory: The origin of Alien," which neatly divers into that, Dan O' Bannon's prior work and childhood, interviews by a ton of folks (now old) including his wife recounting how the production unfolded. It seemed to be a perfect synergy of director, writer, and art designer, and Giger was perfectly suited to embody the visual design.

It was Scott at an earlier, rawer time; and I wish to god he hadn't edited Prometheus to shit (and in some ways Covenant) and also had forced a more coherent story for both films from the get go. (Prometheus feels more about Elizabeth Shaw, Covenant suddenly is all about David honestly.) Because the visuals and ambiance continue to dominate -- they are absolutely gorgeous in both films, even in 3D for the first one.

Anyway, both great films and amazing how they are in different genres so to speak and yet can describe the same world.

I plan to rewatch Alien coming up when I have a block of time, I picked up the 4K anniversary edition when it released and it is just pretty incredible.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Honestly, my favorite moments in Covenant are when it feels like a true sequel to Prometheus. The xenomorph sections felt rushed and shoehorned in so they could have flashy visuals for the trailer. Instead, we're left with a film that doesn't quite do justice as a true Prometheus sequel or a true Alien prequel. Prometheus is super flawed but I still hoped for a real sequel. Cutting Shaw out was a major mistake. I'd put that up there with killing Hicks and Newt as a really egregious move. She deserved better.

And don't get me started on the stupidity of the characters in both films. Everyone seems to act in the dumbest ways possible, solely for the purpose of moving the plot forward

Every few years, I go back to Prometheus, thinking that maybe I'll appreciate it more and see it in a new light, and every time I am left shaking my head. I think Scott did it as one big fuck you to the people who made the AvP movies. I realize his film is waaaay better, but there's an amazing number of similarities between the 1st AvP and Prometheus in terms of story beats and theme. He needed to move on and stop hanging onto that franchise. It's not his baby anymore, and arguably never was his. At least The Predator standalones have, for better or worse, been passed from one director to another (with varying results). I'm glad McTiernan never felt a need to dip his toes back into that universe. (and on that topic, I don't think Predator 2 gets nearly enough love. most criticisms I see focus on Arnold's absence and it seems people just wanted a remake of the first, but I loved Danny Glover's character and the final chase/fight through the city)



Sorry, alien discussions always get my inner rant monster going. It's nothing against anyone else's opinions, I just like talking about these films and appreciate how different each are, and how every fan has their own takes and feelings on them.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

so,

as far as the lesser sequels are concerned, what are everyone's thoughts on Alien 3 vs Alien Resurrection?

I think I might prefer Resurrection to Alien 3. It gets a lot of heat, but I don't think Jeunet ever intended it to be taken very seriously to begin with. In that regard, it succeeds as a very comic book feeling film. If I ranked the films solely on visuals and production design, I'd probably have it second behind Scott's Alien. I love the look of the Xenos (they went back to the classic smooth head design of Alien 1 and 3), and the newborn xeno is actually pretty terrifying. I like that the xenos are shown learning, although that's technically nothing new if you've seen the Aliens extended cut (the hallway sentry gun sequence). Great spaceship designs too. I think this is one of the last sci-fi films to feature miniatures before CGI really took over. It's also got a terrific score that's just as good as the first 3.

Again, I know it's not a great film, but those are the things I find to be its strengths.


Alien 3 is just so dour and nihilistic. The Assembly Cut does improve it quite a bit though. I go back and forth on this one, to be honest. Regarding Hicks and Newt, I wonder if there could have been a way to write them out without killing them off. I don't know how that could be done but I just don't see how their presence could have worked in the movie. Maybe it just shouldn't have been made in the first place. It sounds like it went through a lot of rough drafts and studio interference. It needed a well established director and unfortunately Fincher was young and the studio really walked all over him. All that said, this is my absolute favorite version of the Xeno. I love the Runner and how the movie adds to the Xeno lore, showing its final form as largely dependent on the host animal. I wish other films had touched on that aspect of their physiology more. Charles Dutton and Charles Dance are also standouts. I thought Human Bishop was kind of contrived and silly though.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I rewatched Promethus not long ago and was so frustrated. I like and hate that movie. It is very beautiful, but so flawed. I won't give it another chance.

I don't like A3 or Resurrection.

And I didn't like the extended version of Aliens. The additional scenes hurt the movie. The original cut is just so good.

 

[Totenkindly]

And I didn't like the extended version of Aliens. The additional scenes hurt the movie. The original cut is just so good.

I liked most of the additions myself -- EXCEPT for the extended scene of the colony before Newt's family goes to explore the ship. I think it's more shocking and eerie for the marines to show up to the empty colony, with no idea what happened, it's such a better approach. This wasn't just an "eh" moment, I thought it actually damaged the film to include this and added no value.

But I really liked the addition of the scene about Ripley's daughter, it basically defines her pain spot and gives her even more impetus to adopt Newt; we know the stakes are even higher, it's not just about Newt needing a mother figure but Ripley needing to prove to herself she's still a good mother... and in some way being true to the daughter she inadvertently failed.

I have trouble recalling what the other additions were, they seemed to be smaller bits that could be taken or left behind.

 

[Totenkindly]

so,

as far as the lesser sequels are concerned, what are everyone's thoughts on Alien 3 vs Alien Resurrection?

I think I might prefer Resurrection to Alien 3. It gets a lot of heat, but I don't think Jeunet ever intended it to be taken very seriously to begin with. In that regard, it succeeds as a very comic book feeling film. If I ranked the films solely on visuals and production design, I'd probably have it second behind Scott's Alien. I love the look of the Xenos (they went back to the classic smooth head design of Alien 1 and 3), and the newborn xeno is actually pretty terrifying. I like that the xenos are shown learning, although that's technically nothing new if you've seen the Aliens extended cut (the hallway sentry gun sequence). Great spaceship designs too. I think this is one of the last sci-fi films to feature miniatures before CGI really took over. It's also got a terrific score that's just as good as the first 3.

Again, I know it's not a great film, but those are the things I find to be its strengths.


Alien 3 is just so dour and nihilistic. The Assembly Cut does improve it quite a bit though. I go back and forth on this one, to be honest. Regarding Hicks and Newt, I wonder if there could have been a way to write them out without killing them off. I don't know how that could be done but I just don't see how their presence could have worked in the movie. Maybe it just shouldn't have been made in the first place. It sounds like it went through a lot of rough drafts and studio interference. It needed a well established director and unfortunately Fincher was young and the studio really walked all over him. All that said, this is my absolute favorite version of the Xeno. I love the Runner and how the movie adds to the Xeno lore, showing its final form as largely dependent on the host animal. I wish other films had touched on that aspect of their physiology more. Charles Dutton and Charles Dance are also standouts. I thought Human Bishop was kind of contrived and silly though.

I will have to look up what I posted here before. For some stupid reason, I never logged either film in letterboxd although I've seen multiple versions of A3 and finally watched Alien Res last year, I think. From what little I recall, giving the latter a chance, it actually wasn't a terrible film, and even had some pretty startling moments. (the clone room and the writhing alien body pit are the two that spring to mind.) Meanwhile Fincher's Assembly Cut was better than the studio release of A3.

I don't think there was a way to write out Hicks and Newt either -- but that shows how the entire story concept was ill-conceived to begin with. The story should have been something else, if they even bothered to make another one. I mean, really, Alien -> Aliens is a complete two-part story. There was no reason to make A3 with Ripley, except as a side character to tie them together. Or do something with grown-up Newt.

I hated Human Bishop too, but sure Dutton and Dance were decent. Again, I just don't think Alien 3 should have been about Ripley per se.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I will have to look up what I posted here before. For some stupid reason, I never logged either film in letterboxd although I've seen multiple versions of A3 and finally watched Alien Res last year, I think. From what little I recall, giving the latter a chance, it actually wasn't a terrible film, and even had some pretty startling moments. (the clone room and the writhing alien body pit are the two that spring to mind.) Meanwhile Fincher's Assembly Cut was better than the studio release of A3.

I don't think there was a way to write out Hicks and Newt either -- but that shows how the entire story concept was ill-conceived to begin with. The story should have been something else, if they even bothered to make another one. I mean, really, Alien -> Aliens is a complete two-part story. There was no reason to make A3 with Ripley, except as a side character to tie them together. Or do something with grown-up Newt.

I hated Human Bishop too, but sure Dutton and Dance were decent. Again, I just don't think Alien 3 should have been about Ripley per se.

Fair enough. Her arc had a satisfying end in Aliens. After that point, it almost feels like the films are just torturing her character. Weaver is great but I don’t understand her becoming the focal point of the series. The prison planet idea could work well as a setting without her though

 

[Totenkindly]

Fair enough. Her arc had a satisfying end in Aliens. After that point, it almost feels like the films are just torturing her character. Weaver is great but I don’t understand her becoming the focal point of the series. The prison planet idea could work well as a setting without her though

Yeah -- now that you made me consider it further, I'm realizing my main objections revolve around Ripley's involvement and arc, along with other supporting cast from prior films. The story itself was ok particularly as Fincher envisioned it, it would just be how to tie it in.

There's nothing quite like watching the visceral autopsy in close up of a beloved character you thought had been rescued.