Aliens

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.). (13.04.2003)

A really good action film, even one of the best. It has perfect craftsmanship, but compared to the original Alien, it's just too uniform and predictable. Cameron is undoubtedly a great fachman, but one sees through Aliens very quickly. Still, some of the ideas are unforgettable (for example, cameras in the soldiers' helmets). High above standard in the genre. And after seeing the SE I can only add another star. The excellent atmosphere is guaranteed by both the added additions (e.g. Newt and Ripley's deep relationship is much more logical) and the excellent THX packaging... I enjoyed the atmosphere almost as intensely as I did the first time. :o) Light predictability remained... I'm not so sure about the uniformity anymore. Of course, from a filmmaking point of view, Cameron did not achieve Scott's vision, but one cannot ignore the fact that his visions predetermined the form of science fiction not only in film. (27.01.2004)

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. (27.05.2002)

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. (10.02.2007)

James Cameron is a very wise and clever man. The way he was able to gracefully bridge Scott's horror film (the 57-year time gap, the nightmares, the colonization of the planet) to his own vision of an alien encounter is admirable. It’s an impressive action ride that is unrivaled across all weight categories. It’s built on ingenious editing, (now legendary) sound, and of course, a bunch of marines who, apart from an amazing arsenal, also spew a bunch of catchphrases that should be carved into the most expensive marble. This simply fascinates me even after more than twenty years. To this day I still wonder how something like this film could have ever been made... for me, this is James Cameron's best film and think what you will about it, but that's about all you can do. (03.03.2009)