moviemars from NC, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $6.48 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

penny_pinchers from PA, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $6.49 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

-importcds from CA, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $7.29 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

coolbargainz-com from IL, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $7.30 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

deep_discount_dvd_cd from IL, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $7.50 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

digitaleyes_dvdplanet from IL, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $7.50 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

criticschoicevideo_dvd offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $7.59 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

-dvdlegacy- from NY, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $7.77 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Supermart offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $7.88 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

megdonsmarket offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $8.00 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

What our customer's say!

"An Ugly, Depressing Sequel", I don't know if I've ever seen a sequel that makes so many bad decisions so fast and so early in. Even before the opening titles were over, I had no idea how this film was going to win the viewer back.

Face-huggers get loose in the ship escaping the second rousing film, ALIENS, do their dirty deeds, then die and bleed acid to breach the systems and hulls. The survivors are jettisoned without ever waking up. Newt, the adorable little girl from ALIENS, is killed. Michael Behn's heroic Marine--killed in the crash. The droid--tilt. All that's left is Sigourney Weaver and she crash lands on a dreary, dirty prison planet populated with dirty, repellent inmates.

All of this in the first five minutes. Ugh. On top of all that, they shave Sigourney's hair off and turn one of her eyes blood red.

It's almost as if they had a pre-production meeting and asked, "How can we ruin the ALIEN franchise? Let's ugly up the star, fill the movie with the scum of the galaxy...."

There's a reason this is "the least successful in the ALIEN series."

"Total Wrong Direction: This movie almost ruins the franchise.", 1. We don't learn anything new about the Aliens. THE STORY REAKS!
2. Instead of making this movie about the Aliens, the producers make this movie about Ripley's emotional journey.
3. It does not add to the storyline: What about the company? Where did these creatures come from? How can they grow so fast? Are they intelligent?
4. It doesn't make sense: How did an egg get on board and kill Newt and Hicks. If Ripley is infected, why does she live so long?
5. They kill off two great characters: Newt and Hicks. Oh and the Android.
6. They almost completely ignore all the work that was done in the previous films.
7. The film is cut poorly and is very choppy.
8. THE PLOT AND THE TOTAL DIRECTION OF THIS FILM IS BAD. It should of never been made and the producers and the director and all the writers should be shot! THEY SCREWED OVER ALL THE FANS OF THE FIRST TWO MOVIES, WHICH ARE CLASSICS. SHAME ON YOU!

"Better than its reputation", This film manages to produce a good, effective atmosphere and some good shocks. It's better than it's given credit for as a lot of it works very well. Worth seeing.

"Alienating", The problem with this movie is that it is trying to accomplish two, contradictory things simultaneously:

1) Provide a fitting resolution to the character arc of the protagonist, Ripley, established in the previous film.

2) Abandon vitally important elements of Ripley's history established in the previous film.

It is not possible to accomplish both of these things in a single film, but Alien 3 tries to do just that. Perhaps this internal instability was merely the extension of the conflicting visions of the film's director and the studio that produced and marketed it. Who knows? Thematically, it does indeed provide an appropriate conclusion to Ripley's journey (more on that later), but the shortcuts in narrative that it takes in order to arrive at this conclusion are absolutely fatal; this film forfeits just about all of its credibility before the opening credits are even finished.

I'm referring, of course, to the sequence of events at the start of the film that provide the "transition" from Aliens to Alien 3 -- if complete narrative obliteration can be considered a "transition". Alien 3 is a sequel to Aliens in the way that a Wal-Mart is a sequel to a forest that was cut down in order to make way for it. Every emotional and logical connection that a viewer may have had with the previous movie is cruelly severed within the first few minutes of Alien 3 in order to advance the story into this new chapter. Forget everything you learned from the first two films about the biological rules that dictate how the alien's life cycle works. And, you must ESPECIALLY forget the entire, dramatic focus of the last half-hour of Aliens. None of it matters now. That history is carelessly swept away because, frankly, it's an inconvenience for the hip, grungy world the filmmakers are about to take us to. Alien 3 is moving on, with or without you.

But, what are we moving on to, exactly? Well, as I've said, this film ultimately provides the resolution to Ripley's character arc. In its broadest strokes, it's a fitting end to her character's struggles. Throughout the series, Ripley strives to keep the sinister "Company" away from its prize, the "Alien". Ironically, though, she has also been unwittingly complicit in leading the evil corporation right to the alien, thus bringing them ever closer to achieving their goal, which would presumably unleash untold horrors of bio-weaponry on the world (galaxy?). Ripley has always carried the burden of the Alien with her, both figuratively and, now in Alien 3, quite literally. She knows what must be done.

It's a poignant and appropriate resolution to the "trilogy". And, we don't care. This is because we were INSTRUCTED not to care in the opening 10 minutes of the movie. We were TOLD that seemingly important events in the series really have no long-term significance whatsoever because they can and will be easily discarded when the marketing demands that the series move in a new direction. In perfectly fitting fashion, a NEW "Alien" movie would emerge from Alien 3 that, once again, completely ignores the logic of the film that came before it. I can't think of a more appropriate tribute to Alien 3 than Alien Resurrection, which shows an even greater disdain for the continuity of its predecessor. Well done.

In reviews like this it's tempting to say things like, "this COULD have been a good movie," but that's just not accurate. There was no way this was going to be a good movie. It was doomed from the start. It seems obvious to me that there were conflicting visions tearing this movie in two from the development phase of the project. Before this movie even got started, the powers that be should have sat down and decided to pursue ONE of the following options, in keeping with the two points that I addressed at the beginning of this review:

-- EITHER --

1) Provide a fitting resolution to Ripley's character arc, complete with ALL OF HER HISTORY, including the characters she fought so hard to protect in the previous movie, and all of the internal logic about the life cycle of the aliens that she (and we) learned about...

-- OR --

2) Completely abandon the Ripley story arc, and all of her history, in favor of a TANGENTIAL "Alien" story about a remote prison colony that somehow comes in contact with the creature(s) and has to find a way to survive.

But, it was not to be because, on the one hand, David Fincher (the director) and his crew probably had a style and a drastic new direction for the franchise in mind, more up-to-date for the post-modern ambiguity of the early 1990's, as opposed to the shoot-em-up moral absolutes that defined the mid-1980's. Option #2 was probably best suited for him. But, on the other hand, the studio simply wanted to produce another Sigourney Weaver "Alien" sequel for a mass audience: Option #1. The opening 10 minutes of Alien 3 feels like a reluctant, obligatory and clumsy compromise between these two opposing visions. Neither side could come up with a viable way to build on the heroic climax of Aliens while SIMULTANEOUSLY plunging headfirst into the nihilistic, dystopian purgatory that would define most of Alien 3. Both films portray "dark", futuristic worlds, of course. But, Aliens has lights at the end of its tunnels. Alien 3 just has tunnels.


"Alien 3", We really enjoy this movie Also like that we got the item as soon as we could

Read this reviews before You buy...

"Funny how time changes things.", I enjoyed ALIEN 3 upon it's initial release but it is now my favorite in the series. Nothing wrong with the first two in the series by any means! I find the change in pace and direction refreshing. Of course, having David Fincher on board is always a plus!

"A movie about aliens and that's all", This movie is clearly not the best of the Alien legacy, and is maybe the worst, knowing that we cannot really compare it with "Alien" that appeared about 10 years before. My preferred movies are clearly "Aliens" and "Alien - Resurrection". The screenplay of "Alien 3" is correct but is disappointing. Indeed, the beginning of "Aliens" is completely in adequacy with the end of "Alien" and the beginning of "Alien -Resurrection" is completely in adequacy with the end of "Alien 3". For "Aliens" and "Alien - Resurrection" the screenplay was constrained to respect some important facts from previous opuses (an unknown planet - with hundreds of eggs - to be explored, the death of Lt Ripley) but the scriptwriter had (in my opinion) much more freedom for "Alien 3", the only constraint being that Ripley had to be found in a spaceship with her misfortune comrades (see "Aliens"). So, I was waiting for something really new: the idea of the prison was not too bad but badly exploited in my sense. Something else that was weird: there were 2 parasites in the spaceship, one had impregnated Ripley and the other did nothing !? Was it waiting for the landing ? It should have tried to impregnate Newt or Hicks during their sleep. This is not explained in the movie, where only 1 egg is shown in the spaceship whereas there were 2 creatures ! Something is missing somewhere or I missed something.

Maybe I am a bit too critical, this is an interesting entertainment movie, at least to understand "Alien - Resurrection". However, I cannot give more than 3 stars to this movie since I think the movie could have been much better and somewhat vitiates the Alien legacy.

"People with ADD won't like this one", It would seem that some "fans" of the Alien series would have preferred it if Hicks, Newt, and Ripley had ended up becoming one big, happy Alien-killing Brady Bunch.

Thankfully, Alien 3 ended any possibility of that nonsense.

Released in 1992, Alien 3 was an international success, but a critical failure, mainly because it was a dark, downbeat, and nihilistic horror film as opposed to a fun blow-em-up. The exciting and simplistic approach of James Cameron in Aliens is replaced by a gothic, methodical, and apocalyptic approach by David Fincher, who is much more of an visual artist than Cameron ever was or will be.

The fact is, Alien 3 restores the horror, cynicism, and hopelessness of Ridley Scott's Alien, all of which which was lost in Aliens; don't get me wrong, Aliens is an incredible film, but it was very much an action film that disregarded the subtext of Alien. Cameron dumbed down the Alien design considerably, turning them from psychosexual nightmarish beings (from the mind of H.R. Giger) into basically big insects who work for a Queen.

The acting by Charles Dance, Charles S. Dutton, Brian Glover, and Danny Webb is superior to anyone in Aliens. Alien 3 is populated by complex, flawed individuals, not the cliched (but very likable) grunts of Aliens. Weaver delivers another fantastic performance as Ripley, the lone female who is tasked with turning a prison full of (deeply religious) murderers, criminals, and deviants into fighters willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. That alone makes Alien 3 a much deeper film than Aliens.

Alien 3 is rife with subtext, like Alien. Themes of religion, self-sacrifice, corporate dominance, fatalism, and objectification of humans is prevalent in every frame. No, the characters are not likable, but they are surely fascinating.

The camerawork, visuals, sounds, and action sequences are innovative and top-of-the-line. The first-person perspective of the Alien as it chases down the inmates in the film's climax is astounding. This is truly an art film designed as a slasher movie, like the first Alien.

Alien 3 is not without flaws, but thankfully- much like Blade Runner- the film is finally getting the respect it deserves. It's a shame that there are still some close-minded "fans" who hate Alien 3 for killing off two needless characters (yes, admit it, Hicks and Newt were fun in Aliens, but they weren't necessary in the long run), but in the end, Alien 3 is a gutsy and very non-Hollywood horror movie, one that will stand the test of time.

"One of the worst in the series unless you watch the directors cut", Alien³ is the worst in the series because of the studio. David Fincehr had a dark film in his mind but the studio cut it down. The film does have a few good scares and the cinematography is cool. But the film is very slowly paced and most viewers won't be able to take it.

"People relish ragging on sequels, the question is.... WHY?", When an alien attacked a ship full of irritating blue-collar workers, the people loved it.

When the alien attacked a group of arrogant marines, the people loved it.

So why on earth, in the name of corn, for the sake of all that is good in this world (namely pizza) can't people like this? Shaven headed, Self rejected, isolated in a prison, fundamentalist converts being attacked by aliens? Is it so original that it hurts their heads? Were they so scared that they pushed the traumatic experiences from their minds? Do they not like it when christians are put in a good light? Or all of the above?

As far as I'm concerned, Alien3 is a gem that, not only should be heralded as the best Alien movie, but one of the best sci-fi, horror films of all time. Why? Yeah, I knew you would ask that, I'll tell you.

In this third installment of the Alien series Sigourney Weaver returns in her iconic role as Lt. Ripley. Though this time she is not backed up by miners or marines or even paid workers. This time she is backed up by a motley assortment of rapists, murderers and child molesters! But wait, there's more! they're religious converts! (I know you atheists just love this).

The difference between this film and it's predicessors is that this one uses a different approach in presenting itself. Where as the first film was simplistic yet disturbingly ominous, and the second one a big and explosive, even swashbuckling, to and extent, this third installment becomes dark and gritty. In high contrast to the original's sparing, almost blank style, Alien 3's setting is grimy and filthy. Much of the film takes place in dimly lit corridors, all of which have and ancient, disrepaired feel to them, giving the story a hopeless, forlorn feel. A rust colored tint seemed to have been added to much of the film, only adding to the films rusted style.

This is without a doubt one of the greatest, most disturbing pieces of art ever made.


9/10 stars.

Note: I watched the Assembly Cut, available in the two-disc special edition.