Aliens

Whereas in Alien Ridley Scott pitted defenceless explorers against an invisible threat, in the sequel James Cameron pitted well-armed Marines against a swarm of threats that are visible in all their “beauty”. He replaced disarming fear with disarming adrenaline-fuelled action. In relation to the first film, Aliens could be faulted for its lack of horror intimacy, but here the director replaces that with a cannonade of great ideas, a brilliant plot packed with unparalleled scenes, and his usual technical perfection. It’s an exemplary sci-fi spectacle full of action and suspense that makes your blood run cold. In the context of the genre, giving it anything less than five stars would be an act of barbarism. P.S.: The Director’s Cut, in which we follow the inhabitants of the base before Ripley’s crew lands on the planet, definitely does not detract from the film’s suspense and mystery (“What happened here?’), but rather stylizes those aspects in a different context (“What happened to them?”). And it gives some of the plot elements a broader meaning. (27/05/2002)

Skipping the seemingly unattainably high bar was an impossible task, but James Cameron did what he could. Ripley still works and even Newt, Hicks, or Bishop quickly grew close to my heart. However, I only started to like Aliens after the extended version, which truly gives the right charge to the psychological background of the first half. Its contribution to the additional success with the audience also lies in the timeless action and breathtaking moments full of elegantly deadly villains. (21/04/2005)

Cameron took it radically in his own way and plays on a rather belligerent string. Compared to the first film, there’s less atmosphere and mystery, but the suspense hasn't disappeared and James shows his immense talent and sense of perfectionism in his second big film (not counting Piranha...ahem.). (13/04/2003)

Where Ridley Scott triumphed through the use of a creeping atmosphere, Cameron puts his money on action-packed antics at a seemingly deserted military base. Where Ridley afforded us just as fleeting as possible glimpses of the alien, believing that unseen evil is the most effective, Cameron deploys whole armies of aliens degraded to the role of insectoid cannon fodder. Where Scott has made do with a few actors in what is almost a chamber piece, Cameron gives us a mega production. Hard to say which of them is better. Both are completely different and yet perfect, although each in its own separate genre. But I won’t try to hide the fact that I prefer the movie that uses the singular in its title. (10/02/2007)

James Cameron is a very wise and clever man. The way he was able to gracefully bridge Scott's horror film (the 57-year time gap, the nightmares, the colonization of the planet) to his own vision of an alien encounter is admirable. It’s an impressive action ride that is unrivaled across all weight categories. It’s built on ingenious editing, (now legendary) sound, and of course, a bunch of marines who, apart from an amazing arsenal, also spew a bunch of catchphrases that should be carved into the most expensive marble. This simply fascinates me even after more than twenty years. To this day I still wonder how something like this film could have ever been made... for me, this is James Cameron's best film and think what you will about it, but that's about all you can do. (03/03/2009)