Alien³ 1992 123movies

Watch: Alien³ 1992 123movies, Full Movie Online – Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is the only survivor when she crash lands on Fiorina 161, a bleak wasteland inhabited by former inmates of the planet’s maximum security prison. Once again, Ripley must face skepticism and the alien as it hunts down the prisoners and guards. Without weapons or modern technology of any kind, Ripley leads the men into battle against the terrifying creature..
Plot: After escaping with Newt and Hicks from the alien planet, Ripley crash lands on Fiorina 161, a prison planet and host to a correctional facility. Unfortunately, although Newt and Hicks do not survive the crash, a more unwelcome visitor does. The prison does not allow weapons of any kind, and with aid being a long time away, the prisoners must simply survive in any way they can.
Smart Tags: #alien #prison #android #cryogenics #cult_film #ellen_ripley_character #female_protagonist #sequel #funeral #third_part #dog #orchestral_music_score #blood #death_of_protagonist #creature_feature #outer_space #gore #black_comedy #dark_comedy #stupidity #murder

Find Alternative – Alien³ 1992, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	6.4/10 Votes: 301,031
	47% | RottenTomatoes
	59/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 4670 Popularity: 27.25 | TMDB

Reviews:

Did Gordon Ramsay direct this? F-bombs galore!

Sigourney Weaver remains a joy to watch, while Charles S. Dutton and Charles Dance are strong additions; Dutton especially. As for other positives, I enjoyed the score and the fact that we (seemed to) get way more of the alien itself; which is what I wanted from the first two, personally.

The plot isn’t the greatest but is very watchable, the ending is pretty good. One criticism I do have is the dialogue, as alluded to at the top of my review. I’ve nothing against the use of swear words whatsoever, but man does this film overuse the f-word; it feels like every other word across the conclusion.

Overall, it’s a definite drop down from the two very good predecessors, though I still got the required entertainment from ‘Alien³’. A noteworthy directorial film debut for David Fincher.

**The end of an epic trilogy**

_Mild spoilers:_

Everything has been said about this movie already, but let’s find out why the rating of it (on a different, shabbier website) is so low. Here are some points of a popular reviewer, who has almost 100 percent support of their readers.

1. At some points the audience is bored stiff and at other moments they are confused by the outlandish action sequences.

Outlandish action? Was it too alien? And sorry you were bored by the exceptional cinematography, underlined by a pace that was just right not to rush things, which brings me the second point.

2. …a disjointed mess that feels forced and rushed.

Story seemed linear to me. And which one is it, boring or rushed?

3. The direction is never clear and there is no real screenplay here at all.

This is just saying it was bad, without saying anything at all. How is this helpful.

4. Charles Dutton is pretty good, but his character lacks the development to really make him interesting. Everyone else is just present…

Dutton’s character needs no development. What do you want, him finding Jesus again? Dance’s backstory is interesting, and we get to know little details about everyone else like for example the IQ of one of the guards who then later unexpectedly gives his life for what he believes in, pretty strong character development for a minor player in a Sci-Fi Thriller. And that is the main problem people have when rating “Alien³”, they don’t know it’s not a horror film like “Alien” and it’s not an action flick like “Aliens”.

5. Overall a disappointment that is not very impressive at all. 2 stars out of 5.

More bashing without sound reasoning behind it. This film is clearly underrated, and if the aforementioned reviewer had seen what we have seen in 2017, especially in the Science Fiction genre, he might even agree and change his opinion about how a “disjointed mess” looks like.

I give 5 stars not to up the overall score, but because “Alien³” ends Ripley’s ordeal in a stylish and original way, without insulting the intelligence of the viewer, or rehashing previous plot lines.

4 August 2017

I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

The Alien saga gets turned into an average monster-movie.
After two extremely atmospheric, haunting and tense movies, this third Alien movie came as a bitter disappointment. It picks a more monster-horror approach, in which the ‘monster’ wants to kill everyone. Yes, it’s true that in a way “Alien” wasn’t much different, only difference was that in 1979 this approach was still new and original but not by 1992 standards anymore.

Problem is that this movie is fairly standard and mostly predictable. Basically this movie isn’t much different from most other genre movies, in which a monster is on the loose and on a killing-spree. In this movie you exactly know who is going to die and when. It also really kills the tension the movie. The only thing that makes the killings still good and interesting is the amount of gore used for it.

The more ‘monster’ like approach of the alien also wasn’t a good movie and it differs from the first two alien movies. The alien has a too prominent part in the movie and has way too much screen time. The mystery and horror of the character(s) in the first two movies was they the movie didn’t showed them in many scene’s, at least not fully. In the first two movies the alien was more presented as an animal, killing for their own survival. Not as a monster who kills for pleasure as in this movie is the case. This can be explained because of the reason that this alien in this movie is different from the aliens in the first two movies but this is not satisfying enough, considering that it is never explained in the movie why the alien acts and looks different.

The movie went too various re-writes, even during filming and suffered heavily from the studio’s- and producers influences. No wonder that David Fincher doesn’t want to have anything to do with this movie. With other movies he definitely showed that he is capable of directing both atmospheric and tense movies (“Se7en”, “The Game”, “Panic Room”), so it’s definitely not has fault that the movie failed. As a matter of fact, the visual style and atmosphere of the movie still make sure that this movie is a better than average one.

There are some nice looking and claustrophobic sets featured in the movie. On the other hand the movie unfortunately felt the need to put in some computer effects and even though they of course look quite good for early ’90’s standards, it’s terribly outdated and fake looking now.

The movie is carried once more by Sigourney Weaver’s performance. Ripley is such a great and strong female character. It also shows courage and dedication to the movies and character that Sigourney Weaver shaved her head bald for this movie. Too bad that none of the other characters really work out in this movie. They mostly remain flat and uninteresting. The movie does feature some interesting actors such as Charles Dance, Ralph Brown and Pete Postlethwaite but all of their talent is wasted in the script, in which they get very little interesting to do or say. The re-appearance of Bishop also feels more of an obligation than it serves a real purpose, though fans won’t complain about it and neither would I really. I love Lance!

Not the greatest, most tense, most original genre-piece around, not even on its own.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 54 min (114 min), 2 hr 25 min (145 min) (2003 Special ‘Assembly Cut’ Edition), 2 hr 18 min (138 min) (special edition)
Budget 50000000
Revenue 159773545
Status Released
Rated R
Genre Action, Horror, Sci-Fi
Director David Fincher
Writer Dan O’Bannon, Ronald Shusett, Vincent Ward
Actors Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance
Country United States
Awards Nominated for 1 Oscar. 5 wins & 25 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Dolby (Westrex Recording System)
Aspect Ratio 2.20 : 1 (70 mm prints), 2.39 : 1
Camera Arriflex 765, Zeiss 765 Lenses (special effects), Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision C- and E-Series Lenses
Laboratory Rank Film Laboratories, Denham, UK
Film Length N/A
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman EXR 500T 5296), 65 mm (Eastman EXR 500T 5296)
Cinematographic Process Arri 765 (some scenes) (special effects), Panavision (anamorphic)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (Eastman 5384), 70 mm (blow-up) (Eastman 5384)