Aliens (1986) ****

I never thought I would say this, but I actually like a James Cameron movie better than a Ridley Scott movie. Scott is the fabled director of top-notch sci-fi from “Blade Runner” to “The Martian.” He directed 1979's "Alien", which is widely lauded as a classic itself, but upon re-watching it recently, I found it wasn't all that great. The 1986 sequel, “Aliens”, was directed by James Cameron, famous for big-budget, soulless blockbusters like “Titanic” and “Avatar.” So, “Aliens” is a sequel, and it's directed by a guy more known for putting asses in theater seats than for artistic cred. By all rights, it should not be the better movie, but I'm here to say that it is.

At the end of “Alien”, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) put herself into cryosleep in her shuttle after just barely defeating the alien monster. “Aliens” picks up with her shuttle being discovered years later, drifting through space. She is awakened and tells her story to representatives of The Company, who are naturally skeptical of her tale of an insatiable killing machine with acid for blood. They point out that in the years since Ripley went to sleep, the planet on which she and her crewmates found the alien has been colonized, and no one has reported any giant, killer bugs.

Ripley gets a job operating a robotic forklift, and settles down to a shabby, quiet life with her cat. Then Burke, a company rep (Paul Reiser), shows up to tell her that communication with that colony on Ripley's alien planet has been lost. Burke wants Ripley to come along with him and a bunch of space marines to see if it has anything to do with the killer bugs. As you can guess --- it does!

Where the original “Alien” was full of plot holes and nonsensical character choices, “Aliens” is a tightly-crafted thriller, well-paced, and internally consistent. Sigourney Weaver, the bright spot in “Alien”, continues to shine as one bad-ass heroine, exuding maternal instinct as she protects a colonist child named Newt. Paul Reiser is appropriately morally shifty as the Company Rep, and Bill Paxton is hilarious as the pessimistic marine, Hudson. Lance Henriksen, in particular, shines as Bishop, the ship's android.

More importantly, the screenwriting is way better than in “Alien.” The plot doesn't depend on characters making stupid, inexplicable choices. They sometimes lose their cool, but you would, too, if the walls suddenly came alive with giant, killer bugs! Even the seemingly ridiculous coincidence of the colony being attacked the same year that Ripley is rescued eventually makes perfect sense.

Some critics write “Aliens” off as a shoot-em-up action flick, but that clearly isn't fair. The first shots aren't even fired until something like an hour into the movie. When the shooting does start, the marines quickly get their asses handed to them, their weapons all but useless in the face of an unfamiliar threat. Some suggest that the film is a comment on the Vietnam War, at that time the best example of the limits of superior firepower in the face of an enemy fighting on its own turf. The film takes its time setting up the characters, including the overconfident marines, the inexperienced lieutenant, and Ripley, who approaches the mission with dread.

Ultimately, “Aliens” does devolve into shooting, explosions, and awesome hand-to-hand fighting. It IS an action flick, after all, but it's one of the great ones!

4 stars out of 5