Connect with us

Editorials

Exhumed & Exonerated: ‘Alien 3’ (1992)

Published

on

Every decade has its ups and downs when it comes to cinema, no matter the genre.  Horror fans love to loft on high the output of the ‘30s & ‘40s, the ‘70s & ‘80s, and the more recent decades.  More often than not, however, the 1990s are labeled as the worst decade for the genre.  Not only that, but ‘90s horror tends to be written off as a whole, beyond a handful of undisputed classics.  The purpose of Exhumed & Exonerated: The ‘90s Horror Project, is to refute those accusations by highlighting numerous gems from the decade.  Stone cold classics will be tackled in this column from time to time, but its main purpose will be to seek out lesser-known and/or less-loved titles that I think deserve more attention and respect from fans.  Let the mayhem begin!

Alien 3

Directed by David Fincher
Screenplay by Vincent Ward, David Giler, Walter Hill, and Larry Ferguson
Produced by Gordon Carroll, David Giler, and Walter Hill
Starring Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton, Ralph Brown, Charles Dance, Brian Glover, Danny Webb, Paul McGann, Pete Postlethwaite, Holt McCallany, and Lance Henriksen
Released on May 22, 1992

I was originally going to tackle something a bit more offbeat for this entry, but upon being reminded of “Alien Day”, I switched gears. Last week (4/26…LV-426…hooray for joke holidays) saw many around the nation (world?) celebrating Fox’s Alien franchise, particularly the first two films. What better way to follow things up the next day by taking a look at the dark horse third entry in the sci-fi/horror saga? David Fincher’s Alien 3 has its fans (spoilers: I’m one of them) but to this day it remains a wildly divisive installment in the series.

Alien33

Why is it so divisive? Because the previous films, Aliens, saw Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) come out of her second traumatic encounter with the alien species not only triumphant, but with a new surrogate family. With Ripley as the mother, we were also given Rebecca “Newt” Jorden (Carrie Henn) as an adopted daughter, Corporal Dwayne Hicks (Michael Biehn) as the would-be father, and the android Bishop (Lance Henriksen) as the weird uncle, something ever family seems to have. In short, director/writer James Cameron had given the franchise’s lead a fairytale ending. Unfortunately, not all fairytales remain happy.

The opening sequence of Alien 3 sees these characters in hypersleep aboard the Sulaco, where we last saw them. So what goes wrong? You guessed it, there’s an alien on board! A fire breaks out, forcing the escape ship to be launched, but not before the little face-hugging fiend possibly manages to impregnate one of the three humans with an alien embryo. Life is a cruel bastard at times.

Making matters worse, the escape ship crash lands into the waters on a sparsely populated backwater planet. A planet whose inhabitants are all ex-convicts tasked with keeping a metalworks factory maintained. In the crash, one of the ship’s support beams impales Hicks in his sleep, killing him instantly. Bishop’s already-trashed android body is also further damages, with “pieces of him all over the place”. The malicious cherry atop this tragedy is that Newt is also dead; having drowned in her sleep after her cryo-tube became cracked.

Alien35

Ripley is left alone; her new surrogate family ripped away from her even quicker than her co-workers were in the original film. Whereas the original film was about survival and the sequel about conquering your fear, the third becomes about a loss of faith and hope. It’s no coincidence that the writers chose to make the former prisoners into people who had found religion during their incarceration. Ripley is the faithless tossed among the faithful, attempting to find some meaning and purpose in the wake of another traumatic event.

What good is film dealing with faith that doesn’t have a demon running about? In addition to the mystery of whether or not one of the original trio has been impregnated by an alien, a second facehugger is revealed to have made it onto the escape pod. Upon landing, it “mates” with an animal. What kind of animal it latches onto depends on which cut of the film you are watching, of course. In the theatrical version, it attaches itself to a dog. In the extended producers cut, which hews closer to Fincher’s original vision of the film, it is an ox.

Regardless of the cut, we have a far faster and animalistic alien to deal with this time out. Complicating matters further is the fact that the facilities administration doesn’t believe a word of Ripley’s tale, at least not until the beast slaughters a handful of people. Worse yet, there are no weapons at this facility. After all, it wouldn’t be smart to have a bunch of guns or flamethrowers lying around where convicted murderers and rapists can access them, even if they are all supposedly “reformed” and have “found God at the ass end of space”. All of this contributes to the film’s mounting sense of hopelessness and dread.

Alien32

All the franchise’s hallmarks are on full display here. We have Ripley at the center of it all as the voice of reason, just like she has been since the opening moments of Ridley Scott’s original. We have a colorful cast of characters, mostly of the blue collar variety, running about a dirty and rundown space facility. We have a few characters with their own agenda that does not gel with the rest of the group, especially in the extended cut.  And, of course, we have the company, Weyland-Yutani, still trying to get their hands on the titular fiend…no matter the cost.

We could argue all day about whether or not it was right for Hicks, Newt, and (effectively) Bishop to be torn away from Ripley right out of the gate. Regardless of whether or not you personally agree with this decision, one made by Weaver herself, it’s simply the way the dice rolled. Whether or not that sits well with you, it’s impossible to deny the craftsmanship here. The theatrical cut of the film is compromised, but still a worthwhile sequel. The extended cut is even better, further exploring the new characters and the film’s themes.

Would it have been nice to see at least one more adventure with the three fallen survivors of Aliens? Of course! I love those characters as much as anyone. For a time, it was actually going to happen that way. Before Vincent Ward was brought in to craft a faith-oriented tale involving Ripley, there were three other completely different scripts written for a potential Alien 3. The first one, penned by Neuromancer author William Gibson, saw Ripley in a coma, with Hicks, Newt, and Bishop as the leads. There were also two further, wildly different scripts after that which contained no returning characters at all. One was penned by Eric Red (Near Dark) and the other by David Twohy (Pitch Black). All three can be easily found online, if you are curious, along with Ward’s own (quite different) script.

Alien34

Alien 3 is an ugly, nihilistic sequel slathered in grease and grime and filled with a wide assortment of troubled characters. In addition to its unceremonious dispatching of the other survivors of Aliens, this also seems to be a sore point with those who do not care for the film.  Alien 3 is almost the complete opposite of Aliens, even of Alien, and that’s exactly what I love about it. For most of the films in this franchise, the filmmakers behind them have been allowed to craft their own completely different take on this universe. Ridley Scott’s Alien is the ultimate monster movie. James Cameron’s Aliens is one of the best action films ever made. Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Alien: Resurrection is more of a dark comedy. Ridley Scott’s Prometheus is a weird Planet of the Vampires-esque space exploration flick. Only the Alien vs. Predator films really sidestep a signature style, instead opting for a more comic book-like approach.

Alien 3 might not be the sequel you wanted when you first saw it after watching the first two. I completely get that, but I believe that it is a great fill in its own right. The story and themes are compelling, the cast is great, and the visuals are striking. It’s an ugly sequel in every sense of the word, practically oozing with a feeling of hopelessness that is understandably off-putting to some viewers, but a unique and unforgettable one. It may not have impacted genre-filmmaking as much as its gargantuan predecessors, but it absolutely deserves its place as one of the best genre sequels we have received.

Alien3poster

Up Next: Cast A Deadly Spell (1991)

Previously On…
Species | Mute Witness | Popcorn | Wishmaster | Alien 3 | Cast A Deadly Spell
Disturbing Behavior | The Sect | The Addams Family

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading