deathinleamington

The two previous films in the Alien paradigm set a very high bar for any sequels that may have followed them. It is true, to a certain extent, that Alien 3 is the weakest of the four films in the canon. It lacks weaponry, it's visually bleak, some of the visual effects are a little dated now (although no more than Aliens - that film was just edited a lot better)....... but it gets around these difficulties by creating a huge, chilling, cathedral-like atmosphere in the remote prison complex. The Alien is as terrifying as ever, with some new neat touches not seen in any of the other films, the cast are superb and suitably horrible, and the way they get around having no weaponry is ingenious and very thrilling to watch. This is the only film in the whole canon where you get to see through the Alien's "eyes", it's worth seeing for that alone. And Sigourney Weaver is superb, just like in the other three films. Her performance and delivery is memorable and admirable. I suspect most of the ill-feeling for this film comes from American viewers, and I can understand that. Most of the cast are British, and the film even feels British - there's something very Victorian and more-tea-anyone about this film which is surprising and rather hard to get used to, when you've seen the others. Considering the total chaos that went on during the making of the film, it's frankly amazing that it's even watchable. A very good film that only suffers from being the black sheep of its family, as it is so different to them all.

I love the Alien series, I enjoyed the Predator films too. This clearly is not part of either franchise, it is its own paradigm with homages to both series. If you view this film as part of the Aliens/Predator canons, and are precious about them, you are probably going to hate this film. It's not terribly well-made - the special effects are occasionally striking, but more often look a little clunky. The scene where they discover the Pyramid is a good example - it's hopelessly out of scale, and it even looks like 1980s bluescreen..... surely no-one In 2004 would have let that stay in the film? The script is wooden, it seems like it was written by a 17 year old retaking his GCSEs, but all credit to the actors, they do the best with it that they can. The characterisations are ersatz and formulaic, that's always a bit irritating, although Lance Henriksen's character has a decent flaw I wasn't expecting. There are huge plot-holes, I know a little about Aztec civilisation but the scriptwriters obviously knew less than I did! If you can suspend these not inconsiderable failings, there is an enjoyable hokumish action-thriller here, that's certainly worth 88 minutes of your time. The pacing is fairly good, the pyramid interior is a fascinating backdrop full of images and patterns from the Alien/Predator franchises, and the creature fight sequences are exciting, if a little confusing sometimes. I confess I was on the side of the Aliens, and cheered each time they notched a kill up! There's little of the claustrophobic horror of "Alien", just enough action combat but not as well choreographed as "Aliens" or "Predator 1", the chilling cathedral-like atmosphere of "Alien 3" is present but muted in this film, and there's very little of the humour and dazzle of "Alien Resurrection" and "Predator 2". But it's far from bad. It's just not great. I can think of far worse films. Watch it and make your mind up!

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. It transcends the Carry On series effortlessly, yet stays true to its roots. Parodying the horror genre that had become so popular in the mid-60s was a pretty brave move, especially as the Carry On series was at its zenith, but the gamble certainly paid off. Sid James and Barbara Windsor are both missing - it could have been suicidal, but their replacements Harry H Corbett and Fenella Fielding are simply stunning, giving tour-de-force comedy performances from a sparkling script that makes even the most dyed-in-the-wool Carry On fanatic forget James &Windsor's absence. The plot is involving and suitably spooky, borrowing themes from a kaleidoscope of suspense and supernatural stories, seeming always to pick the best...... Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, Edgar Allen Poe, even science fiction. The performances are unilaterally superb - Williams, Butterworth and Dale are effortlessly comedic, and Bernard Bresslaw is a gem as the undead butler.

This isn't just the best Carry On film - it is, of course - it is NOT Camping, it is NOT Cleo, THIS is the best - it's almost certainly the best British comedy of the 1950s and 1960s. So funny, so lovable, so authentic. All I could wish for is that Charles Hawtrey was in it more.... Although he wouldn't have been in it at all if it weren't that the American distributors asked them to put him in. God Bless America!