Alien 3 | Review | Why I HATE This Movie!

Overview

The reviewer opens by admitting Alien 3 isn’t the worst movie, but it’s the one that angers them the most—not because of pacing or effects, but because of the film’s choices and how badly it undermines the previous installment.

What the reviewer praises

• Bleak mood throughout: The film is praised for sustaining hopelessness and the inevitability of death from start to finish.
• Ripley’s performance (Sigourney Weaver): Placed in emotionally crushing circumstances, Ripley’s breakdown is described as deeply moving.
• Music and tone: The score is called evocative, matching the imagery and themes.
• Fincher’s visual craft: Despite chaotic production, the reviewer argues director David Fincher elevates the material with his “great eye,” even in a terrible situation and with incomplete scripting.

The core “why it’s hated” argument

• It instantly undoes the ending of Aliens: The reviewer highlights the emotional whiplash: right after Aliens ends on hope (“Can I dream?”), Alien 3 supposedly responds with the opposite—Ripley lied to, death in her sleep, and a traumatic autopsy scene involving a child. This is framed as a “slap in the face” to fans.
• Major character deaths feel meaningless: The reviewer emphasizes how Ripley’s hard-won victories and new family (Hicks, Newt, Bishop) are wiped out so the story can be rewritten into something darker and bleaker—making the previous movie’s journey feel pointless.
• Production chaos and lack of direction: Much of the review focuses on behind-the-scenes problems—multiple writers, unfinished script pages given to Fincher late, running out of script while shooting, and ultimately finishing/editing the film differently than planned. The reviewer calls it a “giant mess” with too many cooks and no unified story.

Plot/character issues called out as especially frustrating

• Clemens disappears after he matters: The reviewer notes Ripley’s “romantic interest” character (Clemens) is prominent early on, then vanishes after the alien attack with little impact on anyone—making it feel like the movie mashes two different scripts together.
• The prison-inmate premise wastes its potential: The film sets up violent/skill-based prisoners that could have created interesting survival dynamics, but the reviewer says it barely uses that angle. They also point to changes tied to an adaptation involving monks, turning that into “religious criminals.”
• Final tunnel/chase sequence is visually dynamic but narratively confusing: The ending stretch is criticized as monotonous—generic hallways, indistinguishable inmates, and unclear geography or character objectives—so the setpieces don’t land.

Overall takeaway

The reviewer concludes that the hatred isn’t rooted in any single bad scene. Instead, it’s that the film wastes its premise and betrays the emotional payoff of the previous movie, while being made in a way that suggests no stable script or direction ever existed.

They also emphasize the third film’s extreme bleakness, arguing that effectively “everyone dies,” reinforcing a sense of punishment and desolation for the franchise.

Final notable director reactions

• The reviewer cites: Fincher says nobody hates it more than he does.
• They also contrast this with Christopher Nolan, noting his film was “a disaster,” before returning to the point that Fincher is unhappy—while reiterating that his work still stands out.

Personalities mentioned (in the video)

• Sigourney Weaver (as Ripley)
• David Fincher (director)
• William Gibson (writer mentioned)
• Walter Hill (writer mentioned)
• James Cameron (mentioned; comments about sci-fi writers and “slap in the face”)
• Ridley Scott (implied via franchise context)
• Hicks, Newt, Bishop (characters discussed)
• Christopher Nolan (mentioned)