Alien³

The first time in this cult franchise we have two key elements playing the main role. The first one is undoubtedly the Alien itself, and the second is the depressing and oppressive setting along with the morality and psychological profiles of the convicts – serial killers, violent criminals, pedophiles. David Fincher doesn't waste anything in his debut and his camera escapades (the Alien’s POV) are already a signature. Unfortunately, the monster is again only one and also annoyingly computer-generated when shown in full. Compared to the second installment, there is a slight downgrade, but the atmosphere is brilliantly depressing, and the play with lights is amazing. For example, the lighting of the background during the autopsy is worth mentioning. The emphasized faces alternating with short shots of the scalpel's sharp macro details are incredibly suggestive. Likewise, the prisoners have very well written characters, and the ending, as presented by Fincher, is not particularly surprising. Definitely a progressive and the most peculiar Alien. (01/11/2003)

As an audio-visually powerful, toned-down, existential drama about seeking forgiveness and God in a God-forsaken place, this movie is excellent, but half way through it’s like out of nowhere Fincher remembers (or more likely the producers forced him to remember) that he is filming the new Alien and not a sci-fi adaptation of something by Dostoyevsky. So, all of a sudden he forgets about everything that came before and then launches into an absolutely regular, uninventive kill-fest that loses all of the atmosphere built up in the first half. And this goes for both the regular version and the director’s cut, which is the better of the two, but just a better version of the same and not “something completely different" as many reviewers suggest. (13/01/2010)

I'm putting this film a little below Scott's original opus. Fincher's a talent, there's no denying that. Unfortunately, the third installment of the series was reportedly treated by the studio as unwanted, so it was a problem to fit it into the budget at all (which is visible in places). Yet, after Cameron's spectacularly militant shootout, this psychological play is literally a revelation in a completely repulsive space crime environment for the worst offenders. The creeping terror is trickier than ever, guns are scarce, and Ripley has to fight on two fronts -- a hungry intruder and creepy "roommates". Maybe the third film is something else entirely than what was expected, but in hindsight, I like it more than Cameron's contribution to the Alien family. (27/01/2004)

The last 15 minutes was the first thing I saw of the Alien saga and now, after all those years the circle finally closes. Fincher’s (probably) depressed soul made its rather significant mark on this part and even though the story is a little slow in places, there is no shortage of nerve-wracking moments. P.S.: I have never had a bigger jump-scare moment than I did during the final credits. (06/07/2009)

The first one was (and still is) a formidable claustrophobic machine for mining nerve-wracking atmosphere and suspense; the second one is a militant feast in honour of the most terrifying monsters in modern cinematic history that doesn't let us get away from aliens in the right sense of the word. The third one wants to take something from each by using a single bloodthirsty monster and involving a group of seemingly twisted characters, setting the action in the vast, depressing labyrinth of a prison where life as a symbol no longer has any intrinsic value. The cast is once again perfect and the characters are quite diverse, and it’s not possible to guess who will end up as a bloody spot on the wall and with whom the script has longer-term plans. And as for Fincher's debut, it's a well-known fact that the studio tried to repeatedly rape and control his work, which is unfortunately noticeable: the depressive barrage is at times on a similar level to its predecessors, but partly due to the very choice and nature of the setting, where even a brain-dead would get depressed; and on the other hand, it has a rather fading tendency: the performance of the intruder, like in the first one, is based on suggestiveness, but fails to generate intense flamboyance during its advances (also due to his strange digital form), and mostly doesn't even act as a highlight of the film – that would be the skilful subjective camera work, the effective soundtrack and the already mentioned actors, led by the excellent Weaver, who is more dominant from part to part. It's worth watching, it doesn't offend or fail, but it still makes me sad to think that there could have been a pure Fincher version that would have shown his narrative genius and fulfilled the potential of a great subject into something grander and more distinctive. (22/03/2017)