Aliens

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)

When Ridley Scott made Alien in 1979, it was a huge revival of the genre and the rehabilitation of ugly space monsters as props for adventure sci-fi horror films. Despite all this, it took seven long years before the production studio decided to make a sequel, and none other than James Cameron, who gained the reputation of a first-class director after the triumphant release of The Terminator, was entrusted to make it. Cameron's Aliens literally conquered movie theaters in the United States and abroad. It was hailed as the best science fiction film of the year by both fans and critics. I went to see it with high expectations, and my first impression was rather mixed because the horror atmosphere of the first film was absent, and it was much more of a lavishly filmed action war sci-fi drama. However, it was shot with maximum precision, professionalism, and extraordinary creativity. The plot follows a similar scheme to what the viewer experienced in the first film, but Cameron added the motif of the alien queen and a whole community of two hundred aliens, and audiences can enjoy an attack by dozens of monsters at once. The studio approached the production with extraordinary generosity, and the budget allowed for the use of cutting-edge technology for that time, which paid off. The alien queen was operated hydraulically, but two people were also hidden inside her body, and parts of her body were controlled mechanically by ordinary wire. The movement of the creatures was meant to resemble giant insects, reminiscent of both a praying mantis and a centipede. Cameron also filled the screen with a multitude of characters, tough warriors who would be a decoration in any action film. The screenplay cleverly used the motif of a clash between a human woman defending a child and an alien queen defending her offspring. The scene where little Newt turns to Ripley with a cry of "Mommy" is highly emotive. The cocktail of science fiction, horror, and action drama was a complete success. Although I prefer Ridley Scott's style, I have to take my hat off to Cameron's work. Overall impression: 95%. One of the best films in the science fiction genre. (05/01/2008)

I was always too cool not to take issue with the second installment of the Alien Tetralogy because a) I resented the way it stripped the aliens of their eerie Gigerian mystery and b) I thought it broke from canon in that, unlike the other installments, it didn't focus on the crumbling periphery of humanity's galactic boom but instead placed us on a vast station in Earth orbit or a newly built human colony. The latter does become a crumbling periphery very quickly as a result of alien activity, but what I love about the first, third, and fourth episodes is the unspoken fact of how the human race, in its colonization of the universe, carelessly tosses aside any parts of it that are not lucrative, simply without any interest in cleaning up the mess left behind. And yet I madly enjoyed my last viewing of Aliens as probably the most spectacular military sci-fi of the analog era. The fact that everything we see here is artfully crafted, nicely old-fashioned with dirty paws is accentuated here by the Cameron’s knack or perfectly selling every single screw or bolt of the film perfectly. Not five minutes go by where he doesn't introduce us to some new gadget or weapon. The entire set, costumes, and objects are so fitting it actually makes you want to touch and feel everything. At the same time, the film has fantastic drama, able to move from quiet traumas to showy spectacles, alternating small conflicts (Newt and Ripley vs. the facehuggers) with big ones (machine guns, flamethrowers, dozens of aliens). Not least, then, is the admiration for the duality that runs through almost all of Cameron's films – a technophile director making technophobic films from a male milieu in which women naturally assert themselves. His empathy for Ripley and Newt's relationship contrasted with the Marine figures kind of suggests that Cameron is not only an excellent filmmaker, but imo quite a heartbreaker in his personal life. (19/10/2022)

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)

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.). (12/04/2003)