Thanks for asking.
I, in fact, do not. I find David Fincher's 'Alien³' to be a superior film to James Cameron's 'Aliens', just behind the first 'Alien' (altough appearing quite small in the rearview mirror...).
THE WORST OF THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY....I STILL QUITE ENJOY ALIEN 3....IF YOU CAN GET PAST THE OPENING REVELATIONS...IT'S A TENSE LITTLE HORROR FILM WITH A SOLID CAST...CHARLES S DUTTON WAS ESPECIALLY EXCELLENT.
shareMy opinion is that it's an absolutely atrocious and contrived sequel & a terrible way to end a trilogy but not an entirely terrible film on its own. The plot & characters apart from Ripley are pretty unremarkable with only the two Charles actors getting anything resembling depth. It's a very atmospheric, dreary art house horror & even though it never quite worked for me, if nothing else it was a rather bold choice for the franchise. Frankly I find it very odd THIS is the film that the studio somehow approved of, because it's not very commercially appealing film.
shareYes, I agree with you.
shareAlien -> Alien 3 Assembly -> Aliens
share^^^^
This poster gets it. David Fincher brought back the Horror element and sense of dread that Aliens sorely lacked.
Yeah, exactly.
Aliens isn't terrible but it's very clearly more of an action film of its time. Plus that problem with the film gain is unbelievable! I can hardly bear watching it.
And yes, I haven't seen the latest one yet but otherwise Alien 3 is still closest to the original in terms of horror.