Alien to Aliens is one of the greatest one-two punches in cinema. The 1979 original, directed by Ridley Scott, is an irrefutable classic with some of the best atmosphere and worldbuilding in the science-fiction genre, while its James Cameron-directed follow-up remains the perfect template of how to construct a sequel. The trademark styles of Scott and Cameron are all over their respective films, and the result is both feel like wholly distinctive experiences even while sharing the same basic story. They’re two of the greatest films ever made, and the debate over which is better will continue to rage for years to come.
Lightning Doesn't Strike Three Times
And then the other films happened. While there’s a subset of the Alien fanbase that would like to pretend the conflict between Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the face-hugging Xenomorphs ended with Aliens, the reality is that many films have followed in the wake of their successful parents, most notably the final two entries in the original series, Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. Directed by David Fincher and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, respectively, both failed to meet the high expectations set by their precursors, and these days are swiftly brushed under the carpet whenever discussion of the franchise crops up. To some extent, this is an understandable reaction. Neither comes close to matching the quality the previous entries established, and there’s a feeling of the franchise wearing thin as it struggles to expand a simple premise into a grander narrative. The effects of their troubled productions are evident onscreen, with Alien 3 in particular jumping between so many scripts that the story behind its creation became more interesting than the film itself. While revised versions of both have since appeared that attempt to mitigate their respective problems (to mixed results), the theatrical cuts are still the most widely available versions.
But does that mean Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection have nothing to offer besides some mindless speculation about the other forms they could have potentially taken? Absolutely not. For all their faults, both films uphold the franchise’s commitment to giving its filmmakers the freedom to showcase their unique styles in all their glory, preventing both from feeling like copies of what had already come. Alien 3, with its mature tone that touches on the darkest corners of the human mind (set against the backdrop of a grim industrial aesthetic), plays out like one big testing ground for a young Fincher as he experiments with the themes that will later define his career.
In contrast, Alien: Resurrection feels like an established auteur director relishing the opportunity to play around with a Hollywood-level budget, resulting in a bizarre mix of dark comedy and arthouse sensibilities that puts it right alongside Jeunet’s other work. In an age where new entries to long-running franchises have an increasingly corporate feel, it’s refreshing to remember a time when films still had the unmistakable mark of a director to them, even if this did result in a sloppier end result. Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection are by no means flawless, but both deserve better than what their reputation suggests.
RELATED: 13 Best Alien Horror Movies For Extraterrestrial Terror
With Alien 3, David Fincher Laid the Foundations for His Career
But the story behind Alien 3 is the stuff of film legend, and one that tends to dominate any discussion of the final product. While series producers Walter Hill and Gordon Carroll intended to make a two-part story that would culminate in an epic battle for Earth, they eventually scaled down their plans to a single film. A multitude of scripts came their way, including one by famed cyberpunk author William Gibson set aboard a space station-shopping mall hybrid where the Alien would be one large metaphor for HIV, and another by Vincent Ward set on a giant floating wooden monastery whose inhabitants believed the Alien to be the Devil himself. The latter has since been regarded as one of the great unmade science-fiction films, although the seeds of it can still be felt in the final product. Swap a planet-sized monastery to a planet-sized prison and a cast of all male monks to a cast of all male prisoners, and you have a framework that still adheres to Ward’s basic structure. While this change had already been made by the time Fincher came on board, the concept of setting the film in such an ominous place fits neatly alongside his obsession with examining the worst humanity has to offer, and it’s easy to see what enticed him to the project.
But Alien 3 has much more to offer than just its setting. In many ways, it plays out like an elaborate playground for concepts Fincher would later develop into their own films, making it an increasingly interesting film to return to the longer his career goes on. The entire look of the film, with its grimy industrial design where blood oozes from every corner and shadows reign supreme, reveals a place that would fit right alongside the sinister worlds of The Game and Fight Club. This is an ugly location, populated by morally reprehensible characters who get everything that’s coming to them and so much worse, a stark constant from the likable ensemble of the franchise’s previous films. But Fincher has never cared about how likable his characters are, often focusing on heinous criminals who we simultaneously condemn whilst also being captivated by their every move. Gone Girl or Mindhunter wouldn’t be half as good without their cast of abhorrent but engrossing characters at their forefront, and Alien 3 is all too happy to indulge that unspoken desire.
Even the film’s basic premise echoes future Fincher films. For obvious reasons the prison contains no weapons, resulting in Ripley and its inmates having to defeat the Alien using only their wits and whatever tools they are lucky enough to find. It’s an idea that Fincher would later revisit in his 2002 thriller Panic Room where Jodie Foster’s single mother must fend off an outside threat while stuck inside her house, improvising her way to victory with whatever she can get her hands on. In both cases it gives the world an intense physicality that serves as a solid frame with which to hang the more implausible elements, ensuring both always have a layer of plausibility to them.
This rawness extends to Alien 3’s central location, with Fincher’s trademark attention to detail giving it a tangible and lived-in quality. The concept of a prison planet ruled by a group of religious fanatics makes for a welcome change when compared to its predecessors, while still adhering to the series formula of trapping a small group of characters in a single location. If Alien and Aliens took place in a once idyllic world that has since crumbled under an extraterrestrial threat, Alien 3’s world has collapsed into hell long before the titular alien shows up, and it’s a treat to behold.
Alien: Resurrections Is an Arthouse Film in the Disguise of a Summer Blockbuster
The ending of Alien 3 was a pretty conclusive finale to the series. After discovering she has an Alien Queen embryo growing inside her, Ripley sacrifices herself to prevent it from getting into the hands of the comically evil Weyland–Yutani, thus bringing an end to both her and the Xenomorphs. It’s a dour end for one of cinema’s greatest heroes (although Fincher excels at that type of ending, just look at Seven), but it also brought things to a satisfying conclusion. But Jeunet wasn’t going to let a little thing like the main character being dead stop him from making a sequel, and appropriately enough Alien: Resurrections does indeed resurrect Ripley 200 years later. Only this is not the Ripley we know and love, but rather a clone whose DNA has been combined with that of an Alien Queen, giving her a psychic link to the Xenomorphs. And to make matters worse, an alien embryo has been growing inside her during this process, forcing her to become a surrogate mother to a half-human/half-Xenomorph hybrid. It’s a disturbing premise, but one that feels right at home in the unsettling world of Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Why 20th Century Fox would approach him of all people to direct an Alien film is a mystery for the ages, but somehow a man who had previously only made avant-garde French films got the job directing the next entry in a major Hollywood franchise. Jeunet and Weaver (who he mischievously referred to as his “accomplice”) wanted to get away from the increasing focus on action for something closer to his previous works, and when you watch an extended scene of a newly born Ripley writhing around in a bag in a moment that’s one big metaphor for birth, it’s pretty clear they succeeded. Many Jeunet regulars make an appearance, from actors Ron Perlman and Dominique Pinon to cinematographer Darius Khondji, all bringing their trademark idiosyncrasies from their previous collaborations to the project. Alien: Resurrections is an art film wearing the skin of a summer blockbuster, and the result is the most unusual entry in the series.
But this blend also means it is far from the most elegantly made film. Jeunet has always excelled at mixing realism and fantasy – just look at The City of Lost Children, for example, a film that wears the coatings of horror while still finding time for moments of childlike wonderment – and that clash is in full force in Alien: Resurrection, but he struggles to achieve the balance he previously found with such ease. The scene where Ripley encounters her failed clones (one of whom has only enough life left to beg for its own death) is perhaps the creepiest scene in the franchise, and the clinical way Jeunet shoots it only adds to its haunting quality. But this is the same film that contains Brad Dourif playing a scientist whose obsession with the Xenomorphs borders on sexual and features a scene where a dying soldier survives a Xenomorph attack long enough to pick out a chunk of his own brain. This mix of drama and comedy – not to mention the number of comedic scenes that are presented utterly straight-faced – makes Alien: Resurrections a very strange watch.
The strangest moment of all comes with its ending which sees Ripley killing her surrogate child by blowing a hole in a window and letting it get violently sucked out into space, all the while tearfully looking on as dramatic music swells in the background. It’s clear Jeunet wants this to be a powerful moment, but the contrast between how seriously he and Weaver are taking it and how silly the hybrid Xenomorph looks means audiences may be left unsure if they’re supposed to be laughing or crying. Still, in a franchise that has always had undercurrents of sexual imagery running through its stories (right down to the way H. R. Giger designed the titular alien in the original film), it makes sense that it would eventually touch on abortion. There aren’t many action films that can say that, and even fewer that use a creature that looks like a grownup version of the Eraserhead baby when exploring it. Oh Jean-Pierre Jeunet, never change.
RELATED: Why 2004's 'Alien vs. Predator' Took Decades to Make
For All Their Faults, Both Are Still Worthy Sequels
Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection are no one’s favorite films. They’re messy, overambitious, and failed to reinvent the series like how James Cameron had so masterfully done with Aliens. But both showcase a clear vision told by a passionate artist that no studio today would commit to, transforming them into far more interesting works than they otherwise would have been. For all their faults they are never boring, an accolade not all of their successors have been lucky enough to get — looking at you Alien: Covenant. The success of Alien and Aliens may leave them feeling like a palate cleanser after a three-course meal, but there’s much more to find for those willing to go searching.
