boagman wrote:
Isn't it the sign of a truly wretched movie the fact that you actively avoid it for so long? I think it is.
Depends on the person's ability to accurately identify a "truly wretched" movie. Most people lack such abilities, hence they keep making them.
But again, that's a poor argument and you haven't stated a case in any meaningful terms. If you want to explain to everyone why it's wretched, instead of just stating that it is, that would form a better basis for discussion.
For starters, the premise of Alien 3 is flawed because it makes no sense whatsoever for there to be an egg on the ship. Nor is it explained how Ripley got pregnant with an Alien queen baby. If the facehugger broke through the glass on her pod, how did she not die when she was ejected into space? The story & script are simply terrible.
Fair points - you've identified potential issues with believability. Unfortunately you could levy issues with believability, continuity or plot holes at just about every Hollywood movie in existence, most sporting far worse crimes than Alien 3. The way I see it is that they needed to strip Ripley back to the singular character and this was just one way of doing it after the ending of 2.
But that doesn't make the story and script "simply terrible". You're talking about two separate things there I assume, so by script you mean dialogue? Alien 3's dialogue is actually fairly well written (and delivered), certainly on par with the original. Story wise you're talking about the introduction - that's not the story, it's a premise for a story. The story is that she lands in a maximum security prison based on an off-world colony where there are no weapons or women, within which an Alien infection takes root in an animal and then goes about murdering all the inmates. Being infected herself and having some strange long-term symbiotic relationship with the Xenomorph, Ripley takes advantage of her immunity to being face-holed and attempts to lure the creature into an old furnace and drown it in lead. On success, Weyland Yutani turns up to harvest the Queen inside of her, at which point she suicides to prevent that ever happening (the cringey-chest bursting being removed from the Director's Cut incidentally).
As a story I'd say that's just fine really.
It's not just bad in comparison to the previous movies, it's not good on its own, either.
It's too long/sluggishly paced, there's no suspense, the action sequences are boring, the Xenomorph looks terrible, and the supporting cast is made up of mostly interchangeable bald white guys that are impossible to care about. I'm making this sound awful, but it's not that bad. It's just on the borderline of bad & mediocre (so it'd be like a 4.5/10). David Fincher disowned this movie for good reason.
I haven't any issue with the pace, the same way I don't have a problem with the pacing of Alien, which is VERY slow. Suspense wise it's also not bad, especially that part where the candles start going out in the corridor (I think that may be a DC scene though) and some of the action sequences are decent enough. I particularly like the gate closing corridor run at the end.
If you don't like the inmates that's preference I suppose. Personally I didn't mind a change from an all American cast and some of the performances were very good, particularly Charles Dance, the late Brian Glover and Paul McGann (who has many of his cut scenes reinstated in the DC), and of course Charles S. Dutton who commands some of the best dialogue in the movie.
Fincher disowned the movie because the studio fucked him over and ruined his original vision. Happens all the time in the studio system. Thankfully later he would prove his worth enough to break free of those manacles. Again, the Director's Cut, made without Fincher's consent but reinstating many interesting scenes and implementing a ton of changes, is, for my money, the best version.
Think I'll re-watch this soon, it's a good film for autumn.
| My games - 
