Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Guest Review: Alien3 (1992)

By ScottDS

Chapter eight of David Hughes’ book The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made is titled “Alienated.” It charts the hellish development of the film that became Alien3. The final version that appeared in theaters in the summer of 1992 was a compromised product that its director has since disowned. In 2003, fans were treated to the “Assembly Cut” which best approximated the director’s original vision. While I think the theatrical version is merely okay, I love the Assembly Cut. It’s flawed but brilliant in its own way.

An escape pod is launched from the Colonial Marine spaceship Sulaco after it experiences an onboard fire. Aboard the pod are the cryotubes housing Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Hicks, Newt and the damaged android Bishop, all in stasis. The pod crash lands on Fiorina “Fury” 161, a “double-Y chromosome” prison colony inhabited by the scum of the universe. Ripley is the sole survivor of the crash and superintendent Andrews has sent for a rescue team to evacuate her. A heartbroken Ripley, with the assistance of sympathetic doctor Clemens (Charles Dance), examines Newt’s corpse for signs of alien infection. Andrews and the inmates – all of whom embrace an apocalyptic millenarian religion – participate in a funeral for Hicks and Newt. Meanwhile, an alien bursts out of a dog owned by one of the prisoners (a cow in the Assembly Cut) and starts attacking people one by one.
Ripley hooks up Bishop’s (Lance Henriksen) remains and we find out that there was indeed an alien aboard the ship. After scanning herself, she finds out that she’s pregnant with a queen alien. Ripley asks Dillon (Charles Dutton), the leader of the prisoners, to kill her. After all, the alien won’t kill Ripley as long as she has an embryo inside her. Dillon promises to do so after she helps them kill the alien. After a prolonged bait and chase, they lure the alien into the foundry where the molten metal causes the alien to literally burst. The Company arrives and, wary of their intentions, Ripley sacrifices herself by jumping into the furnace. The facility is quickly closed down and the film ends with Ripley’s “last surviving member” log entry from the end of the first film.

If you look up the phrase “development hell” on Wikipedia, you will find this definition: “...a period during which a film or other project is ‘trapped’…” You might as well find the poster for Alien3 right next to it. This film went through draft after draft over a period of many years. Some versions featured Ripley and no Hicks or Newt, while others featured Hicks and Newt but no Ripley. Cyberpunk author William Gibson penned a version featuring the Weyland-Yutani Corporation pitted against a rival Socialist culture who encounter the alien. Near Dark writer Eric Red and future Pitch Black creator David Twohy also wrote drafts. At one point, future Die Hard 2 director Renny Harlin was attached to the film but later walked.
Eventually, producers David Giler, Walter Hill, and Gordon Carroll sought out Australian director Vincent Ward. Ward’s idea remains one of the great unfilmed stories. It took place on a wooden planet (literally) populated by an order of Luddite monks. They believe the alien to be the devil, and Ripley’s presence a threat to their celibacy. This story was somewhat more introspective, with Ripley reflecting on her life (or lack thereof). “The Name of the Rose in outer space,” as one critic put it. Needless to say, Ward eventually left after seeing his vision slowly wither away due to money and studio politics. Giler and Hill, at the request of Sigourney Weaver, decided to write the final draft themselves.

Hired to direct was a young music video and commercial wunderkind named David Fincher. Fincher had little time to prepare and had to film on sets that had been constructed for Vincent Ward’s version. He had to supervise re-writes, assist with creature designs, and basically act as his own producer. Remember, this was his first movie – he wasn’t even 30 years old yet! He faced opposition – much of it quite arbitrary – from the studio at nearly every turn. In 2003, DVD producer Charles de Lauzirika supervised the construction of an “Assembly Cut.” (Fincher refused to be involved, hence the lack of “Director’s Cut” title.) This version best approximates the last cut Fincher supervised. It’s 30 minutes longer than the version people saw in theaters 11 years earlier.
This is where I come in. I saw this version before I ever saw the theatrical version… and I LOVED IT! It was dark, it was disturbing, it was beautiful to look at – one of those movies you could frame on your wall. There were one or two dramatic visuals that, when combined with the music, kept me up at night. It’s the best acted of all the Alien films. The tone is pure melancholy. Too many movies aren’t as enjoyable as they could be because the tone is inconsistent. (That’s not to say a dark tone always = enjoyment!) Fincher let’s you know exactly 15 seconds in that you’re f---ed. Why 15 seconds? Because that’s when composer Elliot Goldenthal takes the familiar Fox fanfare and corrupts it, ending it on an unresolved note.

To be fair, the film is conceptually flawed and no amount of re-cutting can fix it. Its tone is perhaps too melancholy, especially after the happy ending of Aliens. And unlike the superior firepower of that film, this film features no firearms at all, thus forcing the inmates to “improvise.” The bleak opening title sequence no doubt alienated many people who couldn’t believe that Hicks and Newt were killed off, thus rendering the previous film completely pointless and inspiring no confidence in this film whatsoever. Most of the characters are interchangeable – 99% of the cast consists of bald British guys with thick accents! Oh, and asking us to sympathize with a bunch of rapists and murders… probably not a good idea. And I still have no idea how the alien got aboard the Sulaco. Also, for a horror film, Alien3 isn’t really scary, but you know what? As someone who hates “Gotcha!” scares, that works for me. The mood is scary enough!

But I still enjoy it. The movie is Alien3, not Aliens 2. The religious element gives this film an extra dimension that the other films lack. Some people felt it was all a bit too nihilist, though I think fatalist might be more appropriate. Still, Fincher gets points for trying to make something bigger and meaningful and not just a generic sequel. As I said above, the acting is excellent. Charles Dance and Charles Dutton play Clemens and Dillon, respectively. Clemens is understated while Dutton goes big. Clemens is the prison doctor and provides some necessary exposition, as well as a temporary love interest. Unfortunately, he’s killed off much too soon. Dillon makes for a charismatic leader and, in the Assembly Cut, is introduced in group prayer. His Malcolm X glasses are a nice touch, too.

The late Brian Glover plays Superintendent Andrews and he just commands the screen. He has the tired look of someone who’s been at this job too long. His factotum Aaron is played by Ralph Brown. This character suffers somewhat from conceptual problems. Fincher saw him as a working-class hero while Giler and Hill saw him as the comic relief. The prisoners refer to him as “85” (his IQ) but this doesn’t gel with anything else. The one character that benefits the most from the Assembly Cut is Golic, played by Paul McGann. (McGann was the Eighth Doctor and played Lt. Bush in the Horatio Hornblower TV movies.) Golic is crazy and sees the alien as a fiery angel of death.
At least that’s how it was supposed to be. In the theatrical version, Golic sees his friends killed and is confined to the sickbay. We never see him again and at the end of the film, we’re left wondering what happened to him. In the Assembly Cut, Golic escapes from the sickbay. Ripley and the others have managed to secure the alien in a storage facility… only for Golic to come along later and free it, asking “What do you want me to do next?” He’s quickly killed by the alien, who then escapes. The studio brass felt that capturing the alien diminished its power, but Fincher and editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited the first film) felt this only hardened the suspense – it’s only a matter of time before the alien wreaks havoc again. They were overruled. The chase scenes are exciting, to a point – unfortunately, things get a bit repetitive and I can only assume that Fincher would’ve made some trims had he decide to participate in the new cut. And most of the time you can’t tell who’s who and you don’t really care for any of these people anyway.
Elliot Goldenthal’s longing score is certainly the most avant-garde in the Alien canon. Some parts are more, uh, conceptual and not as pleasant to listen to apart from the film, while others sound more religious in nature. (The title track uses text from Agnus Dei.) The cinematography is beautiful. Fincher has one of the best eyes in Hollywood and he’s ably assisted by the late Alex Thomson B.S.C., who had to step in for the late Jordan Cronenweth A.S.C. whose Parkinson’s Disease rendered him unable to complete the job. The live-action creature effects are great, but the visual effects are a mixed bag. The model work is fine… but there are wide shots featuring the alien in toto. In actuality, this was a rod puppet photographed in front of a bluescreen and composited into the shots. None of these shots have aged well – the alien sticks out like a sore thumb, obviously pasted in after the fact.

Today, it’s sequels, prequels, reboots, oh my! But the template, for the most part, remains the same. I give Fincher and Co. credit for going somewhere different with this universe. Yes, it would’ve been more entertaining had they continued with James Cameron’s action-oriented style. Instead they made a more contemplative and thoughtful movie. Flawed? God yes! But it’s interesting and also serves as a cautionary tale: have a script!

David Fincher, by the way, has since redeemed himself as well. While he gets acclaim and awards for Benjamin Button and The Social Network, personally I think 2007’s Zodiac might be his masterpiece.

“Nobody ever gave me nothing! So I say f--- that thing! Let's fight it!”


Dave Olson said...

I was similarly unimpressed by the theatrical cut; another movie I stopped about halfway through, rewound, and returned to the video store. I may have to check out the Assembly Cut.

Did "Development Hell" exist 50 years ago? Somehow I can't imagine Louis B. Meyer or Jack Warner letting all the pettiness, bitching, and backstabbery go on for years over one movie. Those guys weren't the type to let "sending the right message" take precedence over "getting butts in the seats". As one of them (I think it was Warner) said so famously, "If you want to send a message, try Western Union."

shawn said...

I always had a soft spot for this movie and in no way blame Fincher for it's failings. The cinematography is up there at times with Ridley Scott's Alien.

Weaver, Dance and Dutton all give great performances. Especially Dance who dies too soon.

I'm glad they brought back the smooth headed alien, versus the ridged one seen in Aliens.

The melancoly ending is different, but not bad, afterall, sometimes good people must pay the price to stop the bad things.

Having said that, it's not a movie for everyone.

Anonymous said...

Dave -

It's entirely possible that "development hell" did exist but we're just more aware of it now, thanks to the media, the Internet, etc. For example, lest we forget the trouble Orson Welles went through on The Magnificent Ambersons. (Though that was more "post-production hell" than anything else.)

And it doesn't have to do with sending a message as much as it has to do with "Your script sucks!" "No, it doesn't!" Ad nauseum. "Development hell" exists in the world of TV and video games as well. It isn't unique to the film business at all.

BUT having said that, it may have simply occurred less during the days of the old Studio System where a director was more often than not just a hired hand.

And by all means check out the Assembly Cut. :-)

Anonymous said...

shawn -

Nice to see a fellow fan. And I agree - it's not for everyone, but one could say that about any of these movies.

T-Rav said...

Don't have much to say about it, except that, even with all its flaws, it's still better than practically anything you'll see on the SciFi Channel. (I know, I know; damning with faint praise and all that.)

Anonymous said...

T-Rav -

Don't say that - you might offend Andrew! :-)

Yes, it's eons ahead of anything on SyFy. Just goes to show that money doesn't always = a quality movie, but it can help!

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I want to like this film, but I just can't. It has elements I should like. I like the commander. I like the doctor. I like Roc. I like the concept of them needing to defeat the alien without weapons. I even like the idea of the ending in a way, where they need to chase it into the furnace.

But it just doesn't work. It's too dark. The visuals are muddy. The sounds is muddy and I can barely understand the accents -- it's close to a foreign film in fact. The plot kills the wrong people too quickly and Ripley's character is entirely unappealing in this one.

Like I said, I want to like it... but I can't.

Anonymous said...

Andrew -

It won't make the movie better but have you seen it in HD? It's one of those movies that looks/sounds like shit on TV - but on Blu-Ray, they were able to tweak the sound mix and everything, which they couldn't even do on the DVD version of the Assembly Cut.

I never found the visuals muddy which is why I ask. It's not a bright movie to be sure, and the color scheme uses about five colors (all browns and grays), but it's great to look at in the right format.

(I agree re: the accents, though.) :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I haven't seen the Blu-Ray version yet, though I now own it... I bought all the Alien films as a set. The muddiness is because the film is dark and everything is brown and gray, which makes it all blur together. Five guys standing together in identical dumpy brown costumes tends to blur together into one mass, especially when the set lighting is dark.

When the film first came to television it was unwatchable because of the sound. The DVD was an improvement, but not much. At least you could subtitle some of it.

Individualist said...

The SciFI Channel jumped the shark for me when they gave up Battle Bots for Wrestling. Still there are some good movies on rarely.

As to how the Aliens got on board the ship, wasn't Ripley a clone and didn't the evil corps impregnate her so they could use the beast for their weapons projects or something like that..... been a while since I have seen the films but I thought that was the plot of this one.

Anonymous said...

Andrew -

I may have had to use subtitles the first time I watched it but I've seen it so many times, I no longer have to. And Alien 3 isn't the only movie where I've had to do that. :-)

And speaking of subtitles, when they did the Assembly Cut for DVD, they actually had to use subtitles because they only had the on-set audio to work with. For the Blu-Ray, Weaver, Dance, and Henriksen came back to re-record their dialogue.

I still maintain this is a great-looking movie and I'm trying to think of movies that one could classify as "ugly."

Actually, now that I think of it, the movie Supernova is an ugly movie... I've never seen the whole thing but it was on TV the other day... a constantly-hovering camera, with long lenses that distort everything. Another sci-fi movie that went through development hell... to the point where the director (Walter Hill, I think) took his name off of it.

Anonymous said...

Indi -

That the company wanted the alien for their "bio-weapons division" was in all the movies... we find out that they cloned her in the fourth film (a way to get around her "death" in this one).

The alien/Sulaco question is partially addressed here.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, There are a lot of ugly films. This one. The dragon thing with Matthew McConaughey. Most of the films they filmed in a single color pallet, like gray-blue. There are some action flicks (can't think of the name) where they thought it would be a good idea to bruise up and cut the hero in the opening frame and the whole movie you're staring at this ugly image of someone who is all beat to hell. There are horror films that take place in Hillbilly shacks that are just ugly in all the images they present... not an artistic or beautiful shot in the whole film.

I've run into that too, especially in the mid-1990s where I've had to use subtitles to watch several films. Sometimes, it's just garbled sound. Sometimes, it's bad British. The sound people in the 1990s sucked, no matter how much they deny it.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I should add that I don't hate this film or anything, it just doesn't attract me. And you've done an excellent job of laying out the problems this one experienced. So nice article. :)

5minutes said...

Count me as one of the 12 people on the planet who consider this film superior to every other film in the series. Yes, it's flawed, but so are the others in their own ways. I don't discount a movie for its flaws - I appreciate it for the story, the characters, and everything else that connects me to it, and Alien3 connected with me.

Rustbelt said...

Scott, I've also read Hughes' book. While I could care less if 'Childhood's End' ever reaches the big screen, (the summary of that story alone is almost as depressing as election night last year), the various ideas tossed out for 'Alien 3' almost make one want to cry.
As most have already noted, this film takes chances, which is a good thing. But I have to agree on the color palette. It's so dark and dreary that I really have trouble telling things apart. (It's almost as dark as 'The Relic.') And worst of all, most of the characters are interchangeable. Sadly, the whole thing just screams 'incomplete vision.'

By the way...all the costumes are brown and beige in this film. Hm. Could this be where the costume designer for 'Star Trek Insurrection' got all of his ideas for those annoying hippies?

And Andrew, in the 'Prometheus' discussion, I believe I said I would explain how an episode of MST3K ruined the original 'Alien' for me. (I'd post it there, but this is the more active thread.) Well, here it is!


Anonymous said...

Andrew -

I get what you're saying and for some people I realize it is an unpleasant film, visually or otherwise. (It's amazing to see Fincher's style was there from the beginning.)

And sound people didn't suck - filmmakers with their new-fangled digital sound sucked. (Dolby Digital and DTS both debuted in the early 90s.) And studio execs who wanted to make their moves louder than the other studios' movies... they sucked.

Sound technicians are a talented lot but, like FX artists, they still have to follow the whims of the filmmakers.

Anonymous said...

5minutes -

Consider yourself counted!! I do think the first two are better films: a horror masterpiece and an action masterpiece, respectively. (Though Aliens has dated a bit more than the others.)

But in spite of its flaws, this movie is, dare I say it, deeper and hits on a more emotional level.

Rustbelt said...

The problem hit me when I watched the classic 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' episode, 'Lost Continent.' While most fans of the cult classic remember it for two words ("rock" and "climbing"), I remember it for the sketch they did at the end.

For anyone not familiar with the show, MST3K centered around a guy (Joel, later Mike) stranded on a satellite where mad scientists force him to watch bad movies. He gets through this by making wisecracks ('riffs') while watching the films in silhouette with his 2 robots.

Anyway, 'Lost Continent' is famous for coining the phrase 'padding'- adding extra material of the actors performing tasks or saying things that really don 't add to the plot. It just lengthens the movie. At the end of this episode, Joel and the 'bots explain this technique and how it came to be. (LINK- fast forward to 1:34:10) Then I watched 'Alien' again and suddenly felt hollow. Everything seen as a strength in the film suddenly became a cheap weakness.


Rustbelt said...

First, the 'pay grade' subplot. Praised for adding real-life situations to outer space, this suddenly feels like padding. Ultimately, (and the filmmakers have admitted this), the film is just a simple monster terrorizes space ship movie. The banter suddenly feels like its only purpose is to drag things out and delay the beat's arrival. Padding!

(Note: the MST3K offshoot, Rifftrax, also took some shots at 'Alien' for this. LINK The Randy Newman spoof at the start alone is worth the viewing)

Second, the meandering dialogue. This kind of goes into the previous pay grade subplot, but it goes on throughout the movie. First the pay grade, then problems with the ship, then "why don't they freeze him?", etc. Again, it suddenly feels like they're dragging out the scene. Meandering chatter!

And finally, the appearance of the 'Nostromo.' I believe Scott mentioned that 'Alien' was the first film to show astronauts (or outer space employees) in street clothes. And yes, the ship does look lived-in and cramped. But again, it now seems to be little more than a distraction from the dragged-out opening scenes before the monster finally shows up. Compare that to 'Star Wars.' That movie had a good script in the foreground. Its lived-in sets only added to the experience in the theater. In 'Alien,' the sets almost feel like they're supposed to compensate for the lack of anything happening. Window dressing!

So, we have padding, meandering chatter, and window dressing. Hm...(imitates Mr. Plinkett) Oh, my God! 'Alien' is a loony bin for sci-fi geeks! Who would've thought?

Well, this is just one crazy man's opinion- and the story of how MST3K ruined 'Alien' for him forever. Curse you, Joel!

Anonymous said...


(reply to part 1)

I felt The Relic was tooooo dark at times. Part of that is Peter Hyams' naturalistic style but man, at least in Alien 3 you could see the walls behind the actors... well, most of the time. :-)

Re: the costumes... ironically, the guy who did the costumes for this movie (Bob Ringwood) did the costumes for, not Insurrection but for Nemesis! He's done better work elsewhere (namely Burton's Batman and Demolition Man).

Sanja Milkovic Hays did Insurrection and I'm not a fan of that film's costume design either.

Anonymous said...

Rustbelt -

(reply to parts 2 and 3)

I'm not sure I agree - Alien doesn't feel padded to me. Yes, it's true that Dan O'Bannon's original script didn't have much in the way of characterization (the genders weren't even specified)... and yes, it's true that Ridley Scott focused more on the visuals than the characters... but this one I think is just right. And we need to relate to the characters so we care about what happens to them. If the "bonus situation" scenes weren't there, people would complain that those characters were as disposable as any number of bald Brits in this movie.

You want padding. I was watching one of the Pink Panther sequels on TV the other day - oh God. Unfunny scenes that go on forever and ever!

Rustbelt said...

Scott, I see what you mean in helping the audience connect with the characters. Still, I think it outlives its welcome after a while.

I've never seen any of the 'Pink Panther' movies, but I'm more than willing to take your word for it.

And...a 'Nemesis' connection instead of an 'Insurrection' connection? I'm honestly not sure if that's an improvement or a downgrade.

"Ah, yes. Irony can be pretty ironic at times."
-William Shatner, "Airplane II: The Sequel

Anonymous said...

Rustbelt -

(Great Shatner quote!)

Not to go too off-topic but the Pink Panther movies wear out their welcome pretty fast. The first three are very good. (The first one's more of a romantic caper with Peter Sellers in a supporting role. David Niven is the lead.)

Then they just kept cranking them out... even after Sellers died! But they're all 10-15 minutes too long with too much unfunny padding and they grind to a halt whenever Sellers isn't on screen.

I don't wanna hate on them but there's maybe an hour of classic comedy in the span of 6 or 7 movies!

T-Rav said...

Rustbelt, EVERYONE here--and I do mean everyone, including my enslaved cats--is familiar with the greatness that is MST3K. No explanation necessary.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, No one will be admitted during the rock climbing scene!

As for Alien, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Padding is when something gets added for no purpose whatsoever. The purpose in the opening of Alien, just like in most other horror films (and even the conversation between Jackson and Travolta in Pulp Fiction) is meant to (1) give you a point of normalcy as a point of reference, and (2) give you an insight into the relationships of the characters.

If they had had the same conversation after the alien was roaming the ship, then I would agree -- it would be pointless filler because at that point, the plot is about killing the alien. But until that point, it's not filler... until they get the alien aboard, the purpose of the story is to tell some other story ("the trip of the Nostromo") that then gets interrupted by the alien. In that regard, it's a very well-written story that gives you a ton of information with a limited number of words.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I agree. If you shot Alien as just pure "alien chase movie," it would be pretty horrible.

As an aside, I've really come to dislike the Pink Panther films.

Rustbelt said...

Andrew, sometimes I think I suffer from "Everyone-Praises-Something-So-Much-That-After-a-While-You-Start-to-Gag-On-It Syndrome." I've felt this unnatural disease creep up during viewings of 'Citizen Kane" and "2001" as well. I'm just going to say that 'Alien' is good, but IMO, not that great.

And getting back to 'Alien 3'...what is the deal with the double-Y chromosome guys? I don't recall it being mentioned in Hughes' book. Granted, it's been a while since I read it. Was it just another undeveloped plot thread from a previous that was left in for kicks? And how on earth is it genetically possible? Maybe that's another problem for 'Alien 3.' So much is underdeveloped (the prisoners' religion), barely noticed (the double-Y stuff), or has too much of a mundane explanation (Ripley's shaved head the result of lice problems).

Also, this brings up a problem I have with the film's presentation of the xenomorph/alien itself. In the expanded universe (comics, games, novels, etc.) the xenomorph takes attributes from its hosts. (Best shown in, interestingly, 'Alien vs. Predator: Requiem,' where a xenomorph uses a Predator as a host and gets the creature's trademark mandibles and dreadlocks.) However, you'd never know that from the first, second, and fourth 'Alien' movies, since the hosts are all human. Here, we actually see the beast take another host- a dog in the theatrical cut, a cow in the assembly cut. They had a chance to show how this changes everything about the creature- how it moves, hunts, and acts. But the sets are so constricting and dull-colored that the filmmakers don't take advantage of this.

Yeah, just more nit-picking. But still, another lost opportunity.

Rustbelt said...

T-Rav, I should've known better. Of course, Commentarama is abound with MSTies. I must've spent too much time on Dr. Forrester's Tough Seat Seat. Deep Hurting can really bruise someone's common sense.

Anyway, I swear on the Cartuner and Fridge Largemeat/Bulk Van Der Huge/Thick McRunfast/Rip Steakface/Big McLargehuge that I will never make the same mistake again. Unless, of course, Magic Voice or Brain Guy, messes with my mind again.

Oh, and, uh, always make sure your enslaved cats watch for snakes.

Anonymous said...

Rustbelt -

I assume the all-male cast comes from VIncent Ward's version in which they would've been monks on a wooden planet. Why did they have to all be British (sans Charles Dutton)? I have no idea. :-)

It was FIncher's idea for everyone to shave their heads, including Weaver - I assume lice was simply added as the justification. (This is more evident in the Assembly Cut opening when Clemens discovers Ripley on the beach.)

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, I get that too sometimes. When everyone praises something effusively, it's often not well deserved.

Individualist said...


Isn't that just like an evil parasitic man eating alien....

Here we had a great political story about Unions in space and he has to come up in there eating people and #@$%..... it's the Man keeping everyone down even in the broad emptiness of space where there is no down....

I tell ya....

John Johnson said...

Wait a minute... So which version should I have?

Anonymous said...

John -

If you own the DVD "Quadrilogy" set or the Blu-Ray version, then you own both versions. My preferred cut is the longer Assembly Cut for the reasons mentioned above.

John Johnson said...

Thank you Scott. Sorry for the late reply. I don't have a set which is called the 'DVD Quadrilogy' and certainly not a Blue-Ray version. I'll see if I can obtain it. I must have it after reading this blog entry. Thanks for your excellent contribution by the way!

Anonymous said...

John -

Sorry for the late reply, but you're welcome!! :-)

Anonymous said...

Ehh, I'm not afraid to say that Aliens is tediously overrated. It took the franchise in a less interesting direction IMO. I hope for one day for them to go back to the more Lovecraftian atmosphere and cunning monster, as opposed to a slightly smart animal.

Post a Comment