Directed by:
James CameronScreenplay:
James CameronCinematography:
Adrian BiddleComposer:
James HornerCast:
Sigourney Weaver, Carrie Henn, Michael Biehn, Paul Reiser, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, William Hope, Jenette Goldstein, Al Matthews, Mark Rolston, Ricco Ross (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the sole survivor from the original ALIEN, is awakened after 57 years of drifting through space, her stories disbelieved by Company executives who tell her that the alien's planet is now inhabited and colonized. When contact is suddenly lost with the colonists, Ripley returns to the planet with a squad of marines, an android (Lance Henriksen), and a Company executive (Paul Reiser) with a mission of his own. Once on the planet, no survivors can be found except for Newt, a little girl who awakens motherly instincts in Ripley just in time for the acid-blooded aliens to attack in what quickly becomes a one-sided battle for sheer survival. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (3)
Reviews (14)
James Cameron is a master with a capital M, and when he took over the director's chair from Ridley Scott, he certainly didn't do the first Alien a disservice. Cameron doesn’t skimp, in fact, that word may not even be in his vocabulary, and delivers a perfect and technically proficient sequel about alien monsters. Of the cast, Bill Paxton honestly bothered me a lot, but otherwise I have no other complaints. The music is pretty unremarkable, but the sound effects are very good. Just looking at the spaceship or the model of the alien queen made me stare and wonder if the movie was really a quarter century old. All in all, a very good sequel with a lot more monsters, action and technical gadgets.
()
Where Ridley Scott triumphed through the use of a creeping atmosphere, Cameron puts his money on action-packed antics at a seemingly deserted military base. Where Ridley afforded us just as fleeting as possible glimpses of the alien, believing that unseen evil is the most effective, Cameron deploys whole armies of aliens degraded to the role of insectoid cannon fodder. Where Scott has made do with a few actors in what is almost a chamber piece, Cameron gives us a mega production. Hard to say which of them is better. Both are completely different and yet perfect, although each in its own separate genre. But I won’t try to hide the fact that I prefer the movie that uses the singular in its title.
()
When Ridley Scott made Alien in 1979, it was a huge revival of the genre and the rehabilitation of ugly space monsters as props for adventure sci-fi horror films. Despite all this, it took seven long years before the production studio decided to make a sequel, and none other than James Cameron, who gained the reputation of a first-class director after the triumphant release of The Terminator, was entrusted to make it. Cameron's Aliens literally conquered movie theaters in the United States and abroad. It was hailed as the best science fiction film of the year by both fans and critics. I went to see it with high expectations, and my first impression was rather mixed because the horror atmosphere of the first film was absent, and it was much more of a lavishly filmed action war sci-fi drama. However, it was shot with maximum precision, professionalism, and extraordinary creativity. The plot follows a similar scheme to what the viewer experienced in the first film, but Cameron added the motif of the alien queen and a whole community of two hundred aliens, and audiences can enjoy an attack by dozens of monsters at once. The studio approached the production with extraordinary generosity, and the budget allowed for the use of cutting-edge technology for that time, which paid off. The alien queen was operated hydraulically, but two people were also hidden inside her body, and parts of her body were controlled mechanically by ordinary wire. The movement of the creatures was meant to resemble giant insects, reminiscent of both a praying mantis and a centipede. Cameron also filled the screen with a multitude of characters, tough warriors who would be a decoration in any action film. The screenplay cleverly used the motif of a clash between a human woman defending a child and an alien queen defending her offspring. The scene where little Newt turns to Ripley with a cry of "Mommy" is highly emotive. The cocktail of science fiction, horror, and action drama was a complete success. Although I prefer Ridley Scott's style, I have to take my hat off to Cameron's work. Overall impression: 95%. One of the best films in the science fiction genre.
()
Whereas in Alien Ridley Scott pitted defenceless explorers against an invisible threat, in the sequel James Cameron pitted well-armed Marines against a swarm of threats that are visible in all their “beauty”. He replaced disarming fear with disarming adrenaline-fuelled action. In relation to the first film, Aliens could be faulted for its lack of horror intimacy, but here the director replaces that with a cannonade of great ideas, a brilliant plot packed with unparalleled scenes, and his usual technical perfection. It’s an exemplary sci-fi spectacle full of action and suspense that makes your blood run cold. In the context of the genre, giving it anything less than five stars would be an act of barbarism. P.S.: The Director’s Cut, in which we follow the inhabitants of the base before Ripley’s crew lands on the planet, definitely does not detract from the film’s suspense and mystery (“What happened here?’), but rather stylizes those aspects in a different context (“What happened to them?”). And it gives some of the plot elements a broader meaning.
()
Cameron took it radically in his own way and plays on a rather belligerent string. Compared to the first film, there’s less atmosphere and mystery, but the suspense hasn't disappeared and James shows his immense talent and sense of perfectionism in his second big film (not counting Piranha...ahem.).
()
Ads